DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.759/2007
Mr. Vinay K. Agarwal
S/o Late Sh. J. N. Agarwal
R/o 19, Samrat Apartments,
Vasundhara Enclave,
New Delhi-110096
and office address at
E-55, Sector 8, Noida (UP) …….Complainant
Versus
ICICI Bank Limited
ICICI Towers, NBCC Place,
Pragati Vihar, Bhishma Pitamah Marg,
New Delhi-110003
Branch office at:
ICICI Bank Limited
E-19, Sector-27,
Noida-201301 (U.P.) ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 11.07.07 Date of Order : 09.09.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had opened a saving account No. 268401519186 with the OP at Sector 27 Noida (OP-2) in July, 2006. The OP offered a recurring deposit scheme with the saving bank account. He opted by ticking some option in the saving account opening form itself and amount of Rs.500/- was being debited from his account every month for 6 months having maturity date as 04.02.07 but the OP did not debit the said amount on the date of maturity. He received an SMS on 06.02.07 at 17:17 hrs. stating a cheque No.881741 for Rs. 400/- had been bounced due to insufficient funds as the OP failed to credit the amount in his account on its maturity. On the same day at 17:35 hrs. he again received a message that the account has been credited INR 29088.14, which implies more funds were already in the clearing process and credited to the account on the same day but cheque was still bounced for the reasons best known to the respondent. The cheque was dated “07 February” but cheque could not have been bounced on the ground of insufficient fund and the intimation was sent to the parties without having any concern to the effect on Complainant’s reputation. The OP debited Rs.224/- as penalty on “07 February” on the ground of bouncing of the cheque for insufficient fund which was unreasonable and unfair charges considering the real costs incurred by the bank. He immediately contacted the customer care of OP and the OP replied that the credit of recurring deposit (RD) 003125004848 that he had to visit any of the OP branches alongwith fixed deposit ‘receipt’ of RD as his RD had been opened in different branch of OP Bank “and there is no savings account number updated in repayment account” hence the RD was in “over due” status but the truth is that no deposit receipt was issued to him by the OP and the amount was debited to his saving account towards deposit and should have been duly credited on its maturity as there was no need for any further instructions to the respondent bank, “when the Respondent Bank know which account was being debited. And the saving bank account opening form on which instructions were issued for creation of Deposit related to this account only” but still the matured deposit was kept in safe custody for the reasons best known to OP. The OP had acted in negligent manner in disregard to his interest as he never received any document/passbook/statement for the RD account. As a result of his complaint the OP reversed bouncing charges and was credited to his account on 10.02.07 in contradiction to their own bank statement that no credit will be made until the deposit receipt was produced by the complainant at the branch or some account number was to be provided to the bank but the amount was deposited in his account. He served a legal notice to the OP for asking compensation which yielded no result. Hence, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP the complaint has been filed for directing the OPs to pay Rs. 5 Lakhs towards compensation for serious harm to his reputation due to the negligent behaviour, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and to issue written apology to be published in a leading newspaper having circulation in Delhi and NCR.
OP in the written statement has stated that the cheque No.881741 amounting to Rs.400/- dated 07.02.07 came for clearance a day earlier i.e. on 06.02.07 and the said cheque was not cleared and it bounced for the reason that it was post dated and the reason of it was given by them to the Complainant through internet mail dated 11.02.07. The Complainant failed to give any standing instruction in the recurring deposit application form regarding the crediting of the maturity amount of the RD account and in such circumstances OP had to wait for the instructions from the Complainant to provide to it the account no. where the matured amount could have been credited and this fact is evident from the correspondence dated 10.2.2007. After instruction from the Complainant the RD account was credited in the salary account on 09.02.07. The Complainant deposited the cheque well in advance, for which reason the cheque was bounced and bouncing charges of Rs.224/- were levied on 07.02.07 but, however, on the request of the Complainant the said charges were reversed on 10.02.07. It is stated that on receipt of instructions that proceeds of the said R.D. A/c are to be credited to Salary A/c No. 6284 0151 9186 on 9-02-2007 vide Service Request No. SR18239922, the said proceeds were credited in the said Salary A/c on the very next day i.e. on 10-02-2007. The OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sharma has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had a saving account alognwith RD account with the OP. The Complainant had given the instruction to the OP that an amount of Rs.500/- be debited from his account every month for six months having maturity date as 04.02.07. The Complainant deposited the cheque on 06.02.07 wherein the cheque date was mentioned as 07.02.07 and the cheque was bounced for the reason that it was post dated. The OP debited Rs.224/- from the Complainant’s account but after receiving the complaint from the Complainant OP reversed an amount of Rs.224/- on 10.02.07. Therefore, the bouncing of cheque was because of the negligence on the part of the complainant or the drawee of the cheque. OPs cannot be blamed for this lapse on the part of the complainant or the drawee of the cheque. The complainant has made a fruitless attempt to shift his own blame on the OPs. The decision rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission in Central Bank of India Vs Madan Lal Saran, I (2012)CPJ 253 (NC) relied on behalf of the complainant is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we cannot hold that any loss to his reputation had been caused due to bouncing of cheque or the OPs committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 09.09.2016
Case No. 759/07
09.09.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
