BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.38/13.
Date of instt.: 09.05.2013.
Date of Decision: 04.04.2016.
Smt. Krishana Devi wife of Balwant Raj, resident of Gali No.2, Amargarh Gamri, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Branch Kaithal through its Branch Manager, 1068, Professors Colony, Kurukshetra Road, Kaithal.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., through its Managing Director, P.O. Box 18712 Andheri (East), Mumbai-400058.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ashok Gautam, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. A.K.Khurania, Advocate for the opposite parties.
(Op No.1 already exparte).
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that she purchased a new Alto 800 Car from M/s. Eakansh Motors, Kaithal and got it financed from Maruti Suzuki through the agency. It is alleged that on 24.03.2013, two employees from the office of Op No.1 came to the house of complainant and completed all the formalities for opening the saving account. It is further alleged that after completion of all the formalities, both employees took an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant and issued a cheque book containing 10 cheques and ATM card on the same. It is further alleged that on 25.03.2013, both employees gave the receipt of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant and issued account No.086101503073. It is further alleged that after some time, the Ops denied to open the account of complainant in the bank and demanded back the receipt and other documents from the complainant without any reason. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.1 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 03.07.2013. Op No.2 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that the complainant and Mr. Balwant Raj filled the Account Opening Form (AOF) and the kit number 086101503073 had been issued on March 25, 2013 and Rs.6,000/- were taken from the complainant deposited in account No.086101503073 on March 25. 2013. The application form was sent to RPC for further processing on March 25, 2013. The account opening form (AOF) got rejected and returned to branch on March 30, 2013 with the reason “DOB proof of Primary Applicant Required”. The Branch had approached the complainant again to provide other valid document for further processing of account opening, but the complainant could not provide the required documents till May, 2013. Further, on May 8, 2013 Mr. Balwant Raj approached the branch for the closure of account and asked refund of the amount deposited towards account opening, accordingly, the Branch closed the account on May 8, 2013 and issued a DD No.750 for Rs.6029/-. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark CA to Mark CN and closed evidence on 28.01.2016. On the other hand, the Op No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RA to Ex.RC and closed evidence on 24.02.2016.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is clear that as per pleadings of complainant, on 24.03.2013 two employees came from the office of Op No.1 to the house of complainant and completed all the formalities for opening the saving account and took an amount of Rs.6,000/- from the complainant and this fact is not denied by the Ops. The complainant argued that the Ops refused to open the account of complainant in the bank and did not return the amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops controverted all the allegations contained in the complaint. He stated that with the account opening form, the complainant has submitted affidavit regarding her date of birth and the same was sent to RPC for further processing but the account opening form was rejected and returned to the branch with the reason that the date of birth proof of primary applicant required. The complainant was asked to provide the date of birth proof but she did not provide the same. He further stated that on May 8, 2013 the husband of complainant namely Mr. Balwant Raj approached the branch for the closure of account and asked refund of the amount deposited towards account opening. Accordingly, the Branch closed the account on May 8, 2013 and issued a DD No.750 for Rs.6029/- and obtained the acknowledgment in this regard. At the time of arguments, ld. Counsel for the complainant admitted that the complainant has received the amount of Rs.6029/-. The Ops have also placed a copy of e-mail on the file. From these facts, it is clear that the amount of Rs.6,000/- alongwith interest has already been returned by the Ops to the complainant. So, no action is required in the present complaint.
6. Thus, in view of above discussion, we dispose off the present complaint being infructuous. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.04.04.2016.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
