Delhi

North East

RBT/CC/278/2024

PRIYANSHU JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

N. MATHUR, ADV.

15 May 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

RBT/Complaint Case No. 278/24

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Priyanshu Jain S/o Sh. Pankaj Jain Prop of: SubhashTextiles R/o 4/1729, Mahavir Block, Bhola Nath Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	ICICI Bank Ltd., IX/1617, Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi-110031   Also at:- NBCC Place, Bhisma Pitaman MG, Pragati Vihar, Lodhi Road, Delhi-110003	Opposite Party

 

 

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Party i.e. ICICI Bank Ltd. alleging deficiency in services.
2. As per the complaint, on 08.07.20, while the Complainant was making one payment of Rs. 5,40,000/- to Shree Hari Sai Trading Company but instead of aforesaid company, the payment was done to Shree Balaji Textiles as both the parties are beneficiaries in the current account of the Complainant. On the same day, when Complainant contacted the Opposite Party telephonically, the official of Opposite Party advised to visit branch office of Opposite Party. Thereafter, Complainant visited and requested to reverse the transaction and Opposite Party bank assured to resolve the issue within 24 to 48 hours. On 10.07.20, Complainant again visited Opposite Party bank as the amount was not reversed and he was advised to give written complaint. Thereafter, Complainant gave a written complaint. When no action taken by the branch then Complainant filed another written complaint at another branch. The Complainant had visited various branches of Opposite Party many times but of no use. The Complainant had also written the complaint to banking ombudsman on 06.04.21. On 28.04.21. Complainant received email from Opposite Party that on the complaint to the bank ombudsman, the Opposite Party have sent debit consent letter to beneficiary address. However, they came to know that the account holder has expired and the legal heir has not responded to their letter, hence accordingly, they are not able to accede to the request of the Complainant for the refund of the amount in the absence of the debit consent letter.  On 17.05.21 Complainant sent email to Opposite Party that due to Covid 19, the legal heir might not have received the debit consent letter, Therefore, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to provide the copy of the concerned letter so that the Complainant can take proper action for his grievance, but the Opposite Party did not take any interest in the request of the Complainant. Thereafter on 16.06.21 Complainant along with legal heir of the erroneous account holder (since deceased) visited branch of Opposite Party and gaveNOC to Opposite Party that they have no objection if the transaction made by the Complainant be reversed back as the same was done wrongly in the account of Shree Balaji Textiles. The legal heir of Smt. Sharda Devi Aggarwal  has also given her death certificate to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not reverse the transaction yet. Thereafter, Complainant again made complaint to banking ombudsman on17.06.21. On 16.07.21 Complainant received email from Opposite Party that although the Opposite Party have received the debit consent letter from the legal heir of the deceased but the Opposite Party could not reverse the transaction as the beneficiary account holder is not having sufficient balance to reverse the transaction of the Complainant, hence, the Opposite Party treated the amount of the Complainant to clear one of their NPA account. The Complainant had also sent reminder to banking ombudsman and banking ombudsman sent same reply that the beneficiary account is not having sufficient balance to reverse the transaction of the Complainant. The Complainant had also filed mandatory suit before vide case no. Civil Suit No. (COMM) No. 455/2022 where Opposite Party admitted his mistake but failed to compensate to Complainant. It is stated that Opposite Party could have made the payment earlier but first they tried to get the wrongful gain by adjusting the said amount in one of their NPA account and the Opposite Party had denied several times to make the reversal of the said transaction but they made the payment on dated 06.04.23 after the gap of three years. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party.
3. The present complaint is on admission stage. Arguments heard on admission and perused the file.
4. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had filed a suit for the Mandatory Injunction before the Ld. Senior Civil Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi pertaining to the reversal of the same transaction in respect of which the relief is soughtin the present complaint. The prayer clause of the said suit reads as below;

A) Pass a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant whereby directing the defendant to reverse the transaction of Rs. 5,40,000/- dated 08.07.20 in its original source account, in the interest of justice.

B) Pass any other or further relief(s), which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may also kindly be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, in the interest of justice.

 

5. The perusal of file shows that the said suit was disposed off as being settled vide order dated 16.05.2023 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge 03 Shahadra which reads as below;

On the last date, it was submitted on behalf of plaintiff that plaintiff had already received the payment from the defendant bank as prayed in the present suit and it was prayed that that suit may be disposed off as being settled.

Accordingly, suit is hereby disposed off as being settled.

6. As per S. 40 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 the Plaintiff in a Suit for perpetual injunction or mandatory injunction, may claim damages either in addition to, or in substitution for, such injunction and the Court may, if it thinks fit, award such damages.
7. It is clear from the above that in a civil suit the complainant had claimed for the reversal of the transaction in question as well as any other relief which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and the said matter has been disposed off as settled by the Court of law and the complainant was very much in agreement as he himself prayed for the disposal of the matter.
8. In the present complaint, the complainant is seeking interest on the amount of Rs.5,40,000/-,same transaction which was subject matter of above noted suit. The complainant has also asked for compensation for deficiency in services in respect of same transaction.
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4841 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.30632 of 2011) titled Church of Christ Charitable Trust v. M/S. Ponniamman Educational Trust (2012) decided on 03.07.2012 made the observation that the cause of action is essential for the plaintiff to prove in order to succeed in the suit. Thus, a plaint that does not reveal/disclose the cause of action has no scope of succeeding and, thus, must be dismissed.
10. In the present complaint, the complainant has not been able to show any fresh cause of action in his favour and against the Opposite Party, hence liable to be dismissed.
11.  In view of above discussion, we are of the considered view that since the present complaint does not disclose any fresh cause of action, we do not find any ground to admit the complaint.
12. Thus, the present complaint is dismissed for being without any merits.
13. Order announced on 15.05.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma)             President