BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.
Complaint Case No. : 186 of 2012
Date of Institution : 11.06.2012
Date of Decision : 17-04-2017
Ankur Jain son of Late Sh. Satish chander Jain, resident of House No. 5033, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.
……Complainant.
Versus
- ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No. 6, Sector 11, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.
- ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 400051 through its Managing Director-cum-Authorized signatory.
……Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
BEFORE: SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.
MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Keshav Sharma, Adv. counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Kaushik, Adv. counsel for OPs.
ORDER.
This case has been received by transfer vide order dated 29-05-2012 passed by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana for disposal the same in accordance with law. This Forum has sent the notice to both the parties after receiving the record of the case. Previously this case was fixed for final arguments before the District Consumer Forum, Panchkula for 10-03-2011 and again this case was also fixed for arguments on 27-08-2012.
In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant had opened a saving bank account No. 004301023528 in the year 2002 with the OP No. 1 which is working under the supervision and control of OP No. 2. The complainant had opened the aforesaid bank account on the advertisement being advertise in various newspapers and through telecommunication media and various T.V. Channels and was attracted by the services of the bank of the Ops as advertised through various media. It is further averred that at the time of opening of the account, it was assured by the representative of the bankers and manager at that time, that best of the services would be provided and further the complainant will himself see the difference in the working if compared with the nationalized bankers. It is further submitted that due to certain reasons, the complainant could not operate the account timely and as such, the account of the complainant was made in the “Dormat Status” i.e. inactive. The complainant went to close the account due to its non-operation in the year 2003 but the representative of the OP No. 1 advised not to close the account rather told that the same has got inactive and the complainant should not worry and they will take of the status of the saving account. Whereas the complainant has already informed to opposite party Bankers, through letter dated 19-07-2008 (sent through UPC) regarding possibility of the misuse the cheque and other related information, for reporting and taking action against the alleged user of the cheques. The complainant also met personally to assured for compliance. But the office of the opposite parties in most callous and deficient way ignored the information given by the complainant and acted in most negligent and deficient manner. It is further submitted that the complainant has received one legal notice through Sharma Legal Consultants issued by them on behalf of one Shri Raj Kumar Goel who has misuse and forged the cheques allegedly issued from the account of the complainant maintained by the OP No. 1 and in the notice they have specifically mentioned that the alleged cheques have been dishonored by the OP No. 1 with the remarks “Insufficient Funds” vide Memo dated 08-08-2008. The Ops have clearly over looked the provisions and have wrongly dishonored the cheques whereas they should not have entertain the said cheques and informed the complainant in advance before giving any such report since the account was already in the dormat condition (closed) and as such, no report regarding insufficient funds could have been given by the bankers in the circumstances of the case. It is further averred that due to wrong reporting of the bankers and deficiency in services, the complainant has to go through the agony of the complainant under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, filed under false and frivolous grounds. It is further averred that the OPs have issued the certificate regarding that the account has become dormat on 22-08-2004 and it had become inactive on 22-08-2003. The complainant has been burdened for the alleged amount of Rs. 4,35,000/- which has been filed by Shri Raj Kumar Goel himself in conspiracy with the bankers and have connived with the Ops in order to get wrong report on the memo. The opposite parties have adopted the unfair trade practice and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such, the complainant sought for relief as per prayer clause.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objection qua maintainability of complaint and suppression of material facts. On merits, it is submitted that the bank has always provided its customer inter-alia best of its services for which the OP’s are known for and that is why the OPs are best in the region in its field. It is imperative to mention here that Dormat Status of account does not mean that it is in closed account status. Dormat status means that account has not been operated for quite some time, therefore a caution is marked in the account. However, in case any transaction etc. is made in that account like any cheque or negotiable instrument is presented against the account then it has to be dealt with accordingly as that of a normal operational account, as was done in the present case. The complainant has intentionally and deliberately did not implead the said Raj Kumar Goel as party in the present complaint as he was well aware that in that eventuality his attempt to mislead his Hon’ble court would be unearthed. It is imperative to mention here that the complainant by not impleading the said person in the array of the parties has tried to hoodwink this Hon’ble Forum. It is reiterated that no notice was ever sent by the complainant to the OPs as alleged. In the present case when the negotiable instrument was presented for clearing against the account of the complainant, the account was not holding sufficient funds in it for encashment resultantly the same had to be returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds. It is not out of place to mention here that it is the complainant who has to pay a sum of Rs. 17,296/- as an outstanding balance as on 19-05-2009 to the opposite parties. The complainant has failed to explain as to what was the result of the police complaint allegedly made by him. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C1 to Annexure C-6 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of the OPs was closed by the District Forum, Panchkula vide order dated 25-11-2010. Till date the said order has not been set aside. The counsel for the opposite parties Sh. Anil Kaushik has joined in proceedings at the time of arguments and addressed the arguments.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully. From the above arguments, the following one moot question has arisen for consideration before us are:-
a) Whether the dormat account is a dead account or not?
As per the complainant, he was maintaining the Saving Bank Account with opposite parties since long and in the year 2003 he went to the premises of OP for closing his account but the OP advised the complainant not to close his account and the account has already been inactive & not to worry at all. The story put forward by the complainant in his complaint seems to be planted one. No banker used to advise his customer for not closing his account as the same has already become inoperative rather the banker used to advice his customers to get his/her account functional. The account of the complainant is Dormat account. Dormat account is an account which is not used for long period by the account holder rather the same cannot be treated as closed account. In Dormat account if any instrument like cheque is presented for encashment then the same has been dealt as normal operational account. As per summons Annexure C6 as well as Annexure X copy of complaint titled as Raj Kumar Goyal vs. Ankur Jain, One Raj Kumar Goel had filed a complaint under Section 138/142 of N.I. Act before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula for dishonor of the check amounting to Rs. 4.35 Lacs bearing cheque No. 047489 dated 07-08-2008 drawn on ICICI Bank Sec. 11 Panchkula in the year 2008. The contentions of the complainant is that the OP should not issue the dishonor memo as the account is Dormat one. As per Annexure C4 the balance in the account of complainant as on 05-02-2009 at the close of business hours is Rs. 17,296/- (debit) which itself proved that the account is operational and amount in the account was considered on day to day basis. The complainant further relied upon the complaint made to S.S.P Panchkula dated 07-07-2008 but said complaint does not accompany with any of postal receipt and also does not bear the seal of police authorities. The complainant had also placed on record letter dated 19-07-2008 wherein he alleged that he had lost his cheque book of his account No. 004301023528 and some cheques were got forcibly signed by one Vishal Goyal from him and he had already reported the matter to police authorities. Meaning thereby the signatures on the body of alleged cheque belongs to complainant himself. The complaint was pending at the time of filing of the present complaint but the latest status of the said complaint has not been brought on record by the complainant. OP is not party in the said complainant.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Forum is of view that the present complainant has been filed with an ulterior motive to take the benefit in the complaint pending before Judicial Magistrate and has misused the process of law by way of filing of the present complaint. This Forum found that the present complaint is a frivolous one and deserves to be dismissed with costs as per provisions under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended up to date) and complainant is to be burdened with the cost, which shall be paid to the opposite parties, they have been dragged in the false litigation by the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is, hereby, dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED ON: 17.04.2017 Sd/-
(D.N. ARORA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(ANAMIKA GUPTA)
MEMBER
