Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/730/2015

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

In person

21 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/730/2015
Date of Institution	:	29/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	21/06/2016

 

 

Manish Kumar son of Sh. Chaman Lal c/o Hotel Aroma Complex, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

Permanent Address : H.No.35, Ward No.2, Village Saroda, Tehsil Jagadhari, District Yamuna Nagar, Haryana.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Central Bank of India, Regional Office, SCO No.58-59, Sector 17B, Bank Square, Chandigarh-160017, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

2.     Central Bank of India, SCF Nos.7 to 10, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Signatory.

3.     Life Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Sector 17B, Chandigarh-160017, through its Managing Director/Director/Authorised Signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                       

 

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Saurav Goyal, Counsel for OPs 1 & 2
	:	Sh. Sandeep Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP-3

                       

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         Sh. Manish Kumar, complainant has brought this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Central Bank of India and others, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs) with regard to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. 

                The facts, in brief, are that the complainant has his saving bank account bearing No.3174065275 with OPs 1 & 2.  On 16.3.2015, a sum of Rs.245/- was found debited from the said account and transferred to LIC Policy No.165733837 (Annexure C-1) through ECS.  It is pleaded by the complainant that no such application was moved by him to OPs 1 & 2 with regard to the deposit of the said amount in the shape of ECS to any organization.  The complainant made a request to refund the said amount on 8.5.2015 (Annexure C-2), but, without any success. Reminder (Annexure C-3) was also sent to the OPs.  The complainant received a letter dated 24.6.2015 (Annexure C-4) from OP-3 informing that OPs 1 & 2 sent a proposal for the above mentioned insurance policy under plan 827 for 20 years having sum assured of Rs.75,000/- under monthly ECS mode.  The complainant further pleaded that he never executed any document nor obtained any insurance policy and alleged that the insurance policy was issued in his favour without his signatures, physical appearance and medical tests. The complainant also obtained information under the RTI Act from OP-2. The complainant received reply to the effect that the amount was debited through ECS by mistake, which had been reversed in his bank account. It is alleged that OPs 1 & 2 in connivance with each other had breached the confidentiality i.e. breach of fundamental duty owed to their customers. The details and particulars of the complainant had been disclosed by OPs 1 & 2 to OP-3 deliberately. The complainant alleged that OPs adopted an unfair trade practice and were deficient in service. The complainant thus claimed interest @ 18% per annum on the amount of Rs.245/- for the period the same was illegally retained by the OPs, requested for cancellation of the policy in question and also sought compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-

2.         OPs 1 & 2 resisted the allegations of the complainant in the complaint, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that no ground for relief under the provisions of section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act is made out. In the present case, it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2; the complaint is liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act for being false and misconceived; the complaint is barred by limitation. On merits, it is pleaded that the complainant approached OP-2/bank and filled application form for purchasing the insurance policy of LIC. The application form was duly signed by the complainant, copy of which is Annexure R-1.  The amount of Rs.245/- was debited on 16.3.2015 towards the premium of the above mentioned policy of LIC. It is pleaded that the complainant himself approached the OP bank for purchase of the policy. It is further pleaded that after receiving the request from the complainant for the refund of Rs.245/-, LIC had refunded the said amount and the same was duly credited in the account of the complainant on 4.7.2015.  OPs 1 & 2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
3.         OP-3 also resisted the allegations of the complainant in the complaint, inter alia, taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the complaint; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts; the complainant has dragged the OP into unnecessary litigation by filing a false and frivolous complaint with ulterior motive of extracting money from OP-3.  It is pleaded that a proposal was received from Central Bank of India, who is its corporate agent, under plan 827 for 20 years term and sum assured was Rs.75,000/- under ECS mode. The said proposal form was duly signed by the complainant/Manish Kumar and was witnessed by the authorized official of OP-2.  A sum of Rs.245/- was debited from the account of the complainant towards the premium.  OP-3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 
4.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
6.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of OP-3, and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsels for the OPs.
7.         The complainant in person argued that a sum of Rs.245/- was illegally deducted from his saving bank account.  He never filled up the LIC proforma.  He neither obtained any policy, as alleged, nor ever authorized OPs 1 & 2 to deduct a sum of Rs.245/- through ECS as premium of the LIC policy. He argued that OPs 1 & 2 have illegally supplied the information of his bank account to OP-3, which amounts to unfair trade practice and the OPs have also been deficient in service.
8.         The learned counsel for the OPs, on the other hand, argued that the complainant himself approached for LIC policy, filled up the form and on his request a sum of Rs.245/- was debited from his saving bank account through ECS as premium of the said policy.  Since, later on, a request was made for cancellation of the policy, so the premium amount of Rs.245/- was credited in the complainant’s bank account.  As such, neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs nor it amounts to unfair trade practice.  They also argued that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct to bring this complaint. 
9.         It is admitted fact that on 16.3.2015, a sum of Rs.245/- was deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant and later on the said account was credited in his account on 4.7.2015.  The complainant has denied filling of any application form for obtaining the insurance policy and alleged that his signatures have been forged.  On the other hand, the stand taken by the OPs is that the complainant himself filled the application form for the insurance policy and obtained the policy for a period of 20 years and on his asking a sum of Rs.245/- was deducted from his bank account. 
10.         OPs have placed on record a photocopy of the application form (Annexure R-1), allegedly filled by the complainant.  No doubt the information mentioned in the application form could only be supplied by the complainant, but, it is not proved as to on which date the complainant filled up this application form. The column of date in the form is blank. In another form, which deals with the required information, the date mentioned is not legible. The OPs have failed to prove when the complainant filled up the application form to get the LIC policy.  The official, in whose presence this application form was filled in by the complainant, has not placed on record his affidavit nor the name of the said official has been disclosed by the OPs in their written statement. When there is denial by the complainant about filling up this application form and also there is denial of his signatures, then it was the duty of the OPs to produce evidence that this application form was filled in by the complainant and it bears the signatures of the complainant.  In absence of any such evidence from the side of the OPs regarding filling up the application form by the complainant and proving his signatures on the same, we have no hesitation to hold that this application form was neither filled in by the complainant nor it was submitted by the complainant. This application form seems to have been obtained from some person or it might be possible that after filling the application, the complainant did not agree with the proposal. But, the OPs themselves deducted the premium amount without the consent of the complainant. The version of the complainant cannot be disbelieved that he did not submit the application form because when the complainant obtained the information from OPs 1 & 2 under the RTI Act, he was informed vide Annexure C-6 that the amount was deducted by mistake. However, the said amount has been received back on 4.7.2015. Thus, this admission of the OPs clearly prove that without the consent of the complainant, by mistake, they deducted the amount of Rs.245/- and transferred the same to OP-3 and after the complainant raised an objection, the said amount was credited in his saving bank account.  Hence, taking the amount of Rs.245/- from the bank account of the complainant, without his consent, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs 1 & 2.
11.         No doubt, the complainant has alleged that the bank has supplied his saving bank account information illegally to OP-3, but, no such information was supplied by OPs 1 & 2 to OP-3.  Only the amount of Rs.245/-, debited from the saving bank account of the complainant, was transferred to the account of OP-3. This does not amount to supplying of any information with regard to the saving bank account of the complainant to OP-3. Evidently, OPs 1 & 2 forwarded an application form, allegedly filled in by the complainant, to OP-3, but, since the complainant himself has denied filling up this application form, so sending that application form to OP-3 by OPs 1 & 2 also does not amount to supplying any secret information with regard to the bank account of the complainant to OP-3.
12.         Resultantly, complainant has succeeded in proving that OPs 1 & 2 illegally deducted a sum of Rs.245/- from his bank account on 16.3.2015 and illegally retained the same till 4.7.2015, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  OPs 1 & 2 also tried to create insurance policy in favour of the complainant without his consent, which amounts to unfair trade practice. No doubt the complainant is entitled to interest on the sum of Rs.245/- with regard to the period from 16.3.2015 to 4.7.2015, but, that amount would be a meagre amount. So, the complainant can be otherwise compensated for this interest amount.
13.         In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this consumer complaint is partly accepted.  OPs 1 & 2 are directed as under:-

 (i)    To pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

(ii)    To pay to the complainant Rs.2,000/- as costs of litigation. 

14.         This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
15.         The complaint qua OP-3 stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
16.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
21/06/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	President