Complainant Anju Rani has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.1,50,000/- to her i.e. the amount illegally debited from her account on 26.5.2015 and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for the harassment and mental and physical agony suffered by her due to illegal acts of the opposite parties. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.11,000/- as costs of the present complaint and as litigation expenses.

2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that she is having a privilege saving account bearing No.241501500491 with the opposite parties with their branch at Urban Estate Batala. She was having a balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in her account as on 25.5.2015. The opposite party no.1 illegally, unauthorizedly and without having any right debited an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from his abovesaid account and when she asked the reason and ground for debiting the said amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the said account, the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.1 told her that an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been withdrawn from her account on the basis of a cheque No.2801 dated 26.5.2015.  She had kept the said amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in her account. She never signed any cheque or voucher for the withdrawn or debiting of the said amount from her account. The said act of the opposite party no.1 is absolutely illegal, unauthorized and improper and amounts to deficiency in service of the opposite parties. The opposite party no.2 is the registered office and the opposite party o.3 is the head office of the opposite party as such they have been impleaded as  necessary parties in the present complaint for the proper and effectual adjudication of the matter in dispute.  The opposite parties have committed a grave offence which is otherwise punishable U/S 420, 467, 468 and 120B of Indian Penal Code for which she reserves their right to take appropriate legal action against the officials of the opposite parties.  Due to the abovementioned act the opposite parties have misappropriated the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- belonging to her and they are liable to pay the same to the her or credit the same in  her account. Hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice, opposite parties filed their written reply through their counsel by taking preliminary objections to the effect that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the ICICI Bank. The son of the complainant namely Bharat Aggarwal visited the bank and told the bank officials that her mother/complainant Anju Rani wants to make FD of 2,00,000/- lacs from her account and came with cheque dated 26.5.2015. The bank officials after checking the record told him that there is only Rs.2,00,000/- in the account of complainant and she has to maintain monthly average balance of Rs.50,000/- (In case FD to be made from the account i.e. Linked FD) and it is advisable to make FD of Rs.1,50,000/- and gave him cheque back and told him to make the correction on the cheque with signatures of her mother/complainant. As the complainant is regular customer, as such the linked FD of Rs.1,50,000/- has been made from her account. The FD made in the present case was linked FD and it has been duly shown in the account and the amount of FD can be utilized by the complainant. The son of the complainant did not come back with the cheque and filed the present complaint to harass the opposite party. No question of any deficiency arises as no amount has ever been withdrawn from the account of the complainant and the amount remained in the account of the complainant in the shape of linked FD. The complainant through ATM transferred the total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from her account to the account of ABH Finance which belongs to her son Bharath Aggarwal on 20.7.2015. It has been further pleaded that even the interest of Rs.1356/- has been given to the complainant. On merits also, the same pleadings have been repeated and dismissal of the complaint again prayed. 

4        Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, alongwith other document Ex.C1 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Pankaj Kattal Deputy Branch Manager tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other document Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence.

6.        We have carefully examined the available evidence on the record file

so as  to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document produced and

also that ignored to be produced determined against the backdrop of the respective arguments of the learned counsels of the litigants. We find that the complainant Anju Rani was admittedly maintaining her privilege Savings Bank A/c # 241501500491 Ex.C1 with the OP Bank since 10.03.2015 and was having Rs.2,00,000/- to her credit on 25.05.2015 (in this A/c) when on 26.05.2015 the OP Bank transferred Rs1,50,000/- (from this a/c) to one Linked Fixed Deposit A/c and thus prompted the present dispute. The A/c holder complainant alleges that the OP Bank has debited her SB A/c by Rs. 1,50,000/- without her consent/knowledge and/or any of her instruction/ ratification etc and she has been much harassed/troubled by the unfair-trade-practice exhibited through the unauthorized act. The OP Bank has somehow put forth the ‘alibi’ of cheque # 2801 for Rs.2,00,000/- presented by the complainant’s son for issuance of Fixed Deposits etc but in the absence of any cogent evidence produced on records the OP’s assertion has resulted into a ‘bald’ statement, only. No doubt, the OP Bank could not have produced the cheque # 2801 but somehow it has also failed to produce the Linked FDR to prove its point and also any applicable memo/agreement/terms/conditions of SB A/c validating such suo-moto debits. Even the term ‘Linked FD’ (along with its terms of issue etc) do not appear to have been explained either to the complainant or during the present proceedings. By the exhibited act, the OP Bank has apparently infringed the consumer rights of the complainant and is thus found to be ‘indifferently’ negligent and thus ‘deficient in service’ and that rakes it up liable to attract an adverse award under the Act.

7.      In the light of the all above, we partly allow the present complaint and

thus ORDER the OP Bank to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant in lump-sum as compensation And Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation for having inflicted upon her an unnecessary harassment; within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the award amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of orders till actual payment.

8.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After

compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                  (Naveen Puri)

                                                                          President

ANNOUNCED:                                                (Jagdeep Kaur)

February, 18 2016.                                         Member                     

*MK*