Date of Filing:13.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:24.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 704 OF 2008<br /> <br /> M. Krishna,<br /> S/o Marimadaiah,<br /> R/at No. 51/1, II Cross,<br /> Vannarpet, Bazaar Street,<br /> Bnmgalore. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> Koramangala Branch,<br /> 7th Block, Bangalore-560 095. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/Sec. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, complainant is having S.B A/c in the opposite party Bank. Instruction was given on 13/7/2007 to transfer the amount of Rs. 10,000/- on 10th of every month to the S.B A/c of Smt. T.V. Geetanjali, maintained at ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Sankey Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore. Pay order was taken on 13/8/2007. The same was sent by Courier on 17/8/2007 and thereby there was delay of 7 days in transferring the account. The complainant was sent e-mail to opposite party on 5th September-2007 canceling the standing instruction on 13/7/2007. Complainant requested the opposite party for not to transfer the amount to the account of Smt. T.V. Geetanjali. Opposite party followed the instructions for the month of September, October and November-2007, but again from December-2007 opposite party without there being any instruction resumed to transfer the funds to the said Smt. T.V. Geetanjali. This is a classic case of deficiency of service, breach of trusts, and temporary misuse of customers’ money by the opposite party. Hence, the complaint for seeking compensation. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice was served by RPAD. In spite of service of notice the opposite party has not appeared and contested the matter. Therefore, opposite party was placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Arguments are heard. <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. I have gone through the complaint and the documents produced by the complainant. The complainant has given instructions to the opposite party Bank in writing asking the opposite party Bank to remit Rs.10,000/- to the account of Smt. T.V. Geethanjali on 10th of every month w.e.f., 10/8/2007 until further instructions. The case of the complainant that, pay order was taken on 13/8/2007 and same was sent by Courier on 17/8/2007. Therefore, there was a delay of 7 days in transferring the funds to the account of Geethanjali. Therefore, the learned Advocate argued that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Secondly, the complainant had sent a letter on 5th September-2007 to the opposite party Bank canceling the standing instructions of 13/7/2007. As per the letter dated 5/9/2008 he informed the opposite party Bank that, the standing instruction is hereby cancelled and opposite party Bank was requested not to transfer any amount to the account of Smt. Geethanjali. The copy of letter dated 5/9/2008 is produced. The learned Advocate for the complainant brought to our notice the account statement. As per the account statement on 10/12/2007 the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was transferred to the account of Smt. Geethanjali by the opposite party Bank. This is a clear case of not following the instructions of the complainant. The opposite party Bank even after request by the complainant not to transfer any fund to the account of Smt. Geethanjali and again sent Rs.10,000/- to the account of Smt. Geethanjali and to this effect there is debit entry to the account statement on 10/12/2007. Therefore, this is clearly a deficiency in service. The amount was sent to Smt. Geethanjali without instructions by the complainant. Therefore, it can safely be held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. The complainant requires to be suitably compensated for the deficiency in service. Under the facts and circumstances, taking into consideration the nature of deficiency in service, I feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party Bank is directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service. The opposite party Bank is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order. No order as to costs. <br /> 6. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 7. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 24TH DAY OF JUNE 2008. <br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />