KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMIISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No 7/2012
JUDGMENT DATED :30.04.2012
PRESENT
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
Hanifa Kalangat, S/o K. Mohammed,
Kalangat House, Kootupatha,
Pattiparambu P.O., Thiruvilwamala, Thrissur – 680 588
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. R. Jayakrishnan) Vs
RESPONDENT
ICICI Bank Ltd., Palakkad Branch,
Palakkad- 678 001
Rep. by its Manager
( Rep. by Adv. Sri. K.G. Mohandas Pai)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in C.C. No. 104/2011dated 14.07.2011. The complainant is the appellant who prefers this appeal from the direction of the Forum below that ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of the order till realization. The opposite party is liable to pay the above amounts ordered by the Forum below. Respondent is the opposite party/bank. The appellant/ complainant prefers this appeal from this order of the Forum below that to enhance the compensation and cost ordered by the Forum below. The opposite party/bank did not prefer any appeal from the order.
The complaint related with the freezing of his amount unnecessarly by the opposite party/bank at Cannada. Due to this freezing of the account the complainant was compelled to take loan from the other banks on a higher rate of interest. Later the opposite party/bank lifted the freezing of the account and the complainant withdrawn the amount from the opposite party/bank. The opposite party/bank contended in their version that the freezing of the account is not done by the I.C.I.C.I. bank , Palakkad but it was at Bank of Montreal and they contended that this freezing and further lift of freezing etc are well aware by the complainant. About this fact, like the freezing of his account and the later lifting of the freezing etc. not any way done by the respondent bank unilaterally. Really the complaint availed all the remedies before filing this complaint. This complaint is nothing but an after thought. This is the contention of the opposite party/bank before the Forum below. The Forum below considered the Ext. A1 and Ext A2 documents and heard both parties and then passed the impugned order. On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the counsels for the appellant and respondents argued their own cases in detail. We this Commission perused the available documents from the case bundle and heard the counsels and seeing that the appellant /complainant is not having any damages due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party/bank. Exbt. A1 and A2 no other documents produced before the Forum below to prove that he sustained huge loss due to the deficiency in service and the opposite party/bank. It is submitted by the opposite party/bank that they disputed the entire amount ordered by the Forum below. The respondent/bank did not file any appeal from the above impugned order. We this Commission is seeing that there is no apparent error in the order passed by the Forum below. We are not seeing any evidence or reason to enhance the amount of compensation ordered by the Forum below in favour to the appellant/complainant. There is no scope for interference in this appeal.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. The points of the appeal discussed one by one and answered accordingly. No cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
ST
