BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.411 of 2014

Date of Instt. 21.11.2014

Date of Decision :16.06.2015

Ved Bhushan aged about 64 years son of Hem Raj R/o House No.7, New Raja Garden, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2. ICICI Bank Limited, New Grain Market Branch, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 1 2 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Manish Sidana Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is senior citizen of India and is a permanent resident of above said address. The complainant opened the bank account No.061201504039 with the opposite party No.2. The complainant due to the reasons related to the management of the opposite parties and due to non-cooperative attitude of the opposite party No.2, filed an application for closure of his bank account on 17.10.2014 and the opposite party No.2 gave its endorsement in token of receipt of the said application. As per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and the instructions of the bank, the opposite party No.2, was bound to close the bank account of the complainant on the same day, when the application for closure of the account was filed by the complainant with the opposite party No.2. As per the instructions of the opposite party No.2, the complainant surrendered the ATM Card alongwith the cheque book of bank account of the complainant, but the opposite parties did not close the account of the complainant inspite of specific request in this matter till 23.10.2014. The complainant requested the opposite party to refund the amount lying in the account of the complainant in cash, but the opposite party No.2 did not accede to the genuine request of the complainant and did not refund the amount lying in the account of the complainant in cash for the reason best known to them. on 24.10.2014, the official of the opposite party No.2 contacted the complainant and told to the complainant that in case the complainant wants the amount lying in the bank in cash, then he will have to file an application for taking back the ATM Card and the cheque book from the bank and only then the amount could be withdrawn from the account in cash. As per the instruction of the official of the opposite party No.2, the complainant filed an application for taking back the ATM Card and cheque book from the bank and the same were returned back to the complainant on 27.10.2014. When the complainant contacted and visited the opposite party No.2 for withdrawal of the amount so lying with the bank in cash, then the complainant got shocked to hear that his account has already been closed on 24.10.2014 itself and now the cash can not be withdrawn from the bank account and they will send the demand draft of the amount in favour of the complainant. The complainant could not understand the fact that on one occasion the opposite party No.2 is returning back the ATM Card and cheque book to the complainant on 27.10.2014 and on the other hand the account of the complainant was closed by the opposite party No.2 on 24.10.2014, which act of the opposite parties has caused great mental harassment and financial loss to the complainant as the amount of the complainant lying in the bank account is still in possession of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are using the property which belongs to the complainant in an illegal manner. On 28.10.2014, the complainant received one letter from the opposite parties in which it had been stated that a demand draft of Rs.71,667/- is enclosed but when the complainant opened the letter he could not find any demand draft whatsoever alongwith the said letter, which clearly shows the malafide intention on the part of the opposite parties of non-returning the money of the complainant to him for the reasons best known to the opposite parties, which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant requested and contacted the opposite parties to redress his grievances and to release the money so lying in the bank to the complainant, but till date the opposite parties did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant and have not returned the money till date to the complainant, which shows that the opposite parties are deficient in providing the service to the complainant to which the complainant is entitled for and the opposite parties are involved in unfair trade practice. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party bank to refund the amount of Rs.71,667/- which was lying in the account of the complainant before the closure the account of the complainant alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complainant can not make the opposite party liable for his own acts of omission and commission. The complainant admittedly closed his accounts with the opposite parties and after closure of account wants withdrawal of cash from the said accounts which is absolutely contradictory steps and not at all possible. There is no negligence or deficiency in service or unfair trade practice whatsoever, on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the account. The opposite party has taken all necessary steps as per the prevailing banking practice and instructions of the complainant. The true facts are that complainant's son visited opposite party No.2 on 17.10.2014 for closure of account No.061201504039 in the name of complainant. As there were two fixed deposits in respect of account of complainant, he was requested that the closure request could be processed unless those fixed deposits are also closed for which written request is also required. The complainant's son in the late evening on 22.10.2014 again visited opposite party No.2 after addition in hand written words for closure of FD's on the said letter. As 23.10.2014 was a holiday so the closure request was processed on 24.10.2014 and the account was closed on 24.10.2014 and a demand draft/pay order for Rs.71,667/- was prepared and the complainant was telephonically informed by the opposite party No.2 and said demand draft was dispatched at the address of the complainant on 27.10.2014. The opposite party in the afternoon received a letter dated 24.10.2014 for payment in cash or return of ATM Card to him, which was already destroyed in the computer system of the bank at the time of closure of his account and also informed it to him by its letter dated 25.10.2014 dispatched in post on 27.10.2014. Subsequently, opposite party received letter dated 30.10.2014 from the complainant that he has not received the demand draft so on inquiry it was found that letter containing demand draft was delivered at the address of the complainant on 28.10.2014. Immediately, a duplicate demand draft was prepared and the complainant was requested to collect it from opposite party No.2 but the complainant refused to collect the same from the opposite party and with an ill intention to harass the opposite parties have filed the present complaint. The complaint deserves to be dismissed. The instant complaint lacks cause of action. The complaint is based on mere surmises and conjectures and false statement. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C26 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OPA alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP8 and evidence of opposite parties was closed by order.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. So far amount of Rs.71,667/- which was lying deposited in the account of the complainant at the time of closure of his account is concerned, learned counsel for the complainant received pay order/demand draft No.202126 dated 24.10.2014 duly validated on 25.5.2015 for Rs.71,667/- under protest. So after receiving of the above said amount, the prayer for refund of the said amount has become infructuous. Counsel for the complainant contended that the par order/demand draft for Rs.71,667/- was received by learned counsel for the complainant before this Forum on 1.6.2015 and whereas according to the opposite parties, the account has been closed on 24.10.2014. He further contended that there is delay of more than seven months in making the payment to the complainant. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that account was closed on 24.10.2014 and pay order/demand draft for Rs.71,6667/- was prepared and complainant was telephonically informed and the said demand draft was dispatched at the address of the complainant on 27.10.2014 but subsequently opposite party bank received letter dated 30.10.2014 from the complainant that he has not received the demand draft but on inquiry it was found that letter containing demand draft was delivered at the address of the complainant on 28.10.2014, however, a duplicate demand draft was prepared and the complainant was requested to collect it from opposite party No.2 but the complainant refused to collect the same. So far as, closing of the account of the complainant is concerned, there was no undue delay on part of the opposite parties bank. It is not disputed that complainant moved an application dated 17.10.2014 Ex.C2 for closure of his account. The version of the opposite party bank is that his request for closure could not be processed unless the fixed deposits were also closed for which written request was also required. Further account to opposite party bank, the complainant's son visited the bank late in the evening of 22.10.2014 after adding hand written words for closure of FD's on the above said letter and as 23.10.2014 was a holiday, so the closure request was processed on 24.10.2014 and the account was closed on the same day and a demand draft/pay order for Rs.71,667/- was prepared. Ex.OP4 is request moved by the complainant for closure his account as well as his existing fixed deposit. In the above letter dated 17.10.2014 "Please close my existing fixed deposit" are mentioned in hand. So these words appears to have been added later on in the application with hand and this fact corroborate the version of the opposite party bank. This letter was received by the bank on 22.10.2014. On the letter Ex.OP4 received on 22.10.2014 and processed on 24.10.2014 are specifically mentioned. It is also bearing the stamp of the bank dated 24.10.2014. So there is no undue delay in closing the bank account of the complainant after receiving his request. According to the complainant, he did not receive the pay order/demand draft alongwith the letter sent by the bank. On the contrary the version of the opposite party bank is that the demand draft was sent alongwith letter at the above address of the complainant. The receipt of letter by the complainant is not disputed, however according to the complainant alongwith letter he did not receive the demand draft for the above said amount. In its written reply, opposite party bank has pleaded that subsequently, opposite party received letter dated 30.10.2014 from the complainant that he has not received the demand draft but on inquiry it was found that letter containing demand draft was delivered at the address of the complainant on 28.10.2014, and immediately, a duplicate demand draft was prepared and the complainant was requested to collect it from opposite party No.2. In case a duplicate demand draft has been prepared immediately after receipt of letter dated 30.10.2014 from the complainant, the opposite party bank should have sent the same to the complainant through registered post but it was not done. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 20.11.2014 and opposite party bank appeared through counsel on 9.2.2015. So atleast on appearance before this Forum, the opposite party bank should have tendered the duplicate demand draft to the complainant and the matter would have been different if the complainant or his counsel had refused to receive the same before this Forum. The demand draft was tendered for payment to the complainant only on 1.6.2015 when the case was fixed for evidence of the opposite parties. So in the above circumstances due to late receipt of amount vide above said demand draft, the complainant lost interest on the above said amount. Moreover, if on receipt of letter dated 30.10.2014 from the complainant, the opposite party bank has immediately prepared duplicate demand draft then it should have sent the same to the complainant through registered post and in that event there would have been no need for the complainant to file the present complaint on 20.11.2014. So in the above circumstances, the complainant is entitled to the compensation and litigation expenses.

7. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- in lump sum to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum after expiry period of one month till the date of payment. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

16.06.2015 Member Member President