<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.12.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 10th FEBRUARY 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2825/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Smt.Anvitha Prakash,W/o Sunil Kumar NAged about 28 years,No.2125, 3rd Main, 7th Cross,RPC Layout, Vijaynagar,Bangalore – 40.Advocate – Sri.A.G.SridharV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1) I.C.I.C.I Bank,M.G.Road Branch,1, Commissariat Road,Bangalore – 560025 Represented by itsBranch Manager.2) I.C.I.C.I Bank,M.G.Road Branch,1, Commissariat Road,Bangalore – 560025 Represented by itsAccounts Manager.Advocate – Sri.J.M.Patil.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.5,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is account holder at OP Bank. On 10.11.2008 at the request of her friend by name Ms.Adi, she transferred Rs.5,000/- to her account but instead of mentioning her account No.000201618799 through oversight she mentioned account No.000201618779. When complainant cross checked her accounts and statements on 11.11.2008 she came to know that the said amount has been transferred in favour of some unknown third party that too to a wrong account. Immediately she requested OP to reverse back the entry and refund the said amount to her or adjust the said amount wrongly credited to the account No.000201618779 to her account. But all her efforts went in vain. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances she felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties. When complainant approached the OP about the wrong mention of the account number they immediately disclosed the beneficiary name Stifan Fernandis. Complainant ought to have proceed against Stifan Fernandis who was benefited out of the said wrong committed by the complainant. Unfortunately she has not taken any steps against him but want to through blame on the OP that too for no fault of it. It is a mistake committed by the complainant herself. There is no provision to block the said account and reverse the entry unless the beneficiary gives due consent. Here in this case Stifan Fernandis has not consented for reversing of the said entry. Under such circumstances though complainant is aware of all these developments and the complications but still she did not seek relief against Stifan Fernandis. On the other hand filed this false complaint against OP. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. As could be seen from the contents of the complaint itself complainant was supposed to transfer Rs.5,000/- in favour of her friend to her account No.000201618799. As admitted complainant, through oversight transferred the said amount to the account No.000201618779. So it is the complainant who committed the mistake and wrong. Unfortunately now she want to harp upon the OP alleging the deficiency in service. Approach of the complainant in our view does not appear to be very much fair and honest.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 7. When complainant approached the OP with regard to the mistake and sought for blocking of the account, reversing of the entry they did intimate that the beneficiary is one Stifan Fernandis. So it would have been more fair on the part of the complainant to proceed against Stifan Fernandis to redress her grievance. At least she would have made the said beneficiary as a party in this complaint, but no such steps are taken. Again there is a carelessness on the part of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 8. As per the banking norms, practice and procedure OP sou-motto can’t block anybody’s account or do auto reverse of the transaction without the consent of such a beneficiary or a party the account holder. OP has not received any intimation or consent from Stifan Fernandis in that regard. Under such circumstances OP is not obliged to auto reverse the said transactions in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. We find the defence set out by the OP is reasonable and acceptable. When OP has followed the R.B.I guidelines, Banking rules and regulations, that act of OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service. The monetary loss and mental agony if any suffered by the complainant is because of her own negligence. When there is a scope to redress her grievance by approaching the beneficiary Stifan Fernandis and when such an equally efficacious relief is readily available at her disposal, what prompted her to file this complaint against OP is not known. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point No.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of February 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />