<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 23rd OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.268/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.Rakheeb Sharief,S/o Ayub Sharief,Aged about 27 years,R/a No.228, 6th Main Road,D.B Street, P.G Halli,Bangalore – 560 003.Advocate – Sri.Ramachandra BV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY ICICI Bank,By its Branch Manager,Jayanagar Branch,No.80/7, Elephant Rock Road,3rd Block, Jayanagar,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.K.Prakash<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.15,000/- deposited and pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- 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 opened the S.B account at OP Bank bearing No.005301524897. He deposited one cheque dated 10.08.2007 drawn on Amanath Co-op Bank, Bangalore for Rs.15,000/-. In the month of September when he went to the OP Bank for with-drawl of the certain amount at that time to his utter shock and surprise he came to know that his account is closed. Complainant neither withdrawn the amount deposited nor given any authorization to the OP to close his account. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to reimburse the amount deposited by him went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly he 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 the OP once when they receive an application for opening of the account certain formalities have to be completed. The account will be activated only after the due consent from the controller Bank with a specific instructions. It may take some time like one week or so. When complainant deposited the said cheque his account was not actually in existence nor it is activated. On the receipt of the said cheque it was kept under suspense account till the regularization of his account. There is no dishonest or malafide intention on the part of the OP. Though OP made its best effort to contact the complainant to refund the said Rs.15,000/- its efforts went in vain. Complainant was intimated that subject to approval by their controlling Bank his account will be opened. Though he is aware of the said fact but still filed this false and frivolous complaint. Complainant did not accrue any cause of action. Under such circumstances OP is not liable to pay any compensation and damages. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<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 Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant opted to open an S.B account at OP Bank. Then presented a cheque for Rs.15,000/- drawn on Amanath Co-op. Bank, Bangalore on 10.08.2007. According to the complainant in the month of September 2007 when he went to OP Bank to withdraw certain amount to his utter shock and surprise he came to know that his account is closed. At no point of time neither he has withdrawn the said amount nor intimated or authorized OP to close his account. The arbitrary act of the OP caused him both mental agony and financial loss. His repeated requests and demands made to OP to rectify the mistake went in futile. Thus he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. Most of the facts are admitted in this case. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant the defence set out by the OP is that though they received the representation from the complainant with regard to opening of the S.B account, to activate the account they take at least one week and it is subject to approval by their controlling Banker. For this defence no such documents are produced by the OP. OP admits that it received a cheque of the complainant for Rs.15,000/- but it kept in suspense account. So all these arbitrary acts of the OP definitely amounts to deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP that they made several efforts to refund the said amount, once when they closed the account of the complainant. For this defence also basically there is no proof. Further OP says that it has informed the complainant that his account has not been approved by its controlling Bank, hence he can’t operate the account. For this defence also no documents are produced. So the entire defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake just to save their skin out of sin. <br /> <br /> 9. Of course while filing the version in the month of March 2008 OP has produced Bankers cheque for Rs.15,000/- drawn in favour of the complainant dated 06.12.2007. Then it is revalidated up to 25.03.2008. Now as on this day six months period is already over, so complainant is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. OP retained the said huge amount for six months, then thought of refunding the same without interest on 25.03.2008, which is unfair. By retaining the said amount OP must have accrued certain interest and at the same time it deprived the benefit of the amount to be enjoyed by the complainant. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to refund Rs.15,000/- either issuing the fresh cheque or by revalidating the so called cheque referred to above already issued in favour of the complainant and pay a nominal compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.15,000/- either by revalidating the cheque already issued in favour of the complainant referred to in the body of the judgment or by issuance of fresh Banker’s cheque and pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.250/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<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 23rd day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />