Date of Filing: 28/11/2011

        Date of Order: 09/01/2012

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  9^th DAY OF JANUARY 2012

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

C.C. NO.2160 OF 2011

Mr.Umed Raj Singhvi,

Aged About 65 years,

             &

Mrs.Vasumathi Singhvi,

Aged About 57 years,

R/at: #G-3/102, Srinidhi Niwas,

Chickalsandra, Bangalore-61.

(Rep. by In person)                                                                  ….  Complainant.

V/s

M/s.ICICI Bank Limited,

Banashankari IIIrd Stage,

Bangalore.

(Rep. by Sri.Jai.M.Patil, Advocate)                                         …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/-,  are necessary:-

The complainants are husband and wife and the 2^nd complainant is having the SB account No.015801502135 with the opposite party.  The 1^st complainant visited the opposite party on 01.10.2011, filed an application-cum-deposit-slip and cheque No.262037 for Rs.80,000/- for keeping the amount in Fixed Deposit.  He has also deposited Rs.20,000/- in cash in SB account No.015801502135.  The personnel at the counter were unfriendly.  The 1^st complainant on 17.10.2011 reached the counter No.13 to keep the amount in FD with the cheque No.262037 dated: 01.10.2011 for Rs.80,000/- and duly filled application-cum-deposit-slip as completed during earlier visit on 01.10.2011.  The said personnel changed the date of the cheque and applicant cum deposit slip in spite of the protest from the complainant and sought the signature of the 2^nd complainant.  Accordingly the complainant went back home and took the signature and delivered the same to the opposite party to make FD.  At the spot the complainant lodged a complaint with the opposite party regarding the harassment caused to them.  The action of the opposite party caused mental agony to them.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite party are:-

On 01.10.2011 the complainants have not presented the cheque and the application-cum-deposit-slip.  On 17.10.2011 only the 1^st complainant has approached the opposite party and presented the same cheque and application-cum-deposit-slip which bears the date as 01.10.2011.  Accordingly the officials of the 1^st opposite party requested the complainant to change the date on it and to obtain the counter signature on the cheque as well as on the application that was obtained and the FD was made.  This is as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.  There is no deficiency in service.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases, the complainant has stated that complaint and documents be read as their evidence.  The opposite party has filed their affidavit.  The complainant has filed the written arguments.  Heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the 2^nd complainant is the account holder with the opposite party and the 1^st complainant is her husband.  It is also an admitted fact that as on 01.10.2011 and 17.10.2011 in the SB account there was sufficient funds to issue FD.  It is also an admitted fact that on 01.10.2011 the complainant No.1 approached the opposite party for keeping Rs.80,000/- as FD along with filled application-cum-deposit slip took the cheque No.262037 for Rs.80,000/- dated: 01.10.2011.  Further it is an admitted fact that on 17.10.2011 the complainant No.1 came to the opposite party with the said cheque duly signed by his wife i.e., 2^nd complainant and duly filled and singed application of his wife for keeping the amount in FD for Rs.80,000/-.  This was presented to the opposite party.  But opposite party asked them to change the date from 01.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 and get it attested. 

7.       Merely the complainant No.1 has presented the application and cheque on 17.10.2011 it does not mean the opposite party is entitled to seek change of the date in the application or in the cheque nor it can ask the complainant to change the date in the application or in the cheque, get the signature of his wife for the corrections made.  The complainants have not presented the cheque which has become time barred nor presented application which has time barred.  It was presented on 17.10.2011.  Hence the opposite party could have endorsed on the application stating that the cheque is presented on 17.10.2011 and the application is presented on 17.10.2011 and it could have issue the FD on that day itself.  But instead of that they asked the complainant No.1 to change the date from 01.10.2011 to 17.10.2011 and made him to go to his house to get the signatures of the 2^nd complainant on the corrections made and then did the work.  This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

8.       It is further seen immediately the 1^st complainant has lodged a complaint with the opposite party on 17.10.2011 bringing it to its notice, the audacity of its personnel to opposite party.  Instead of taking action against their personnel, they did not regret for the inconvenience caused.  If opposite party regretted for this probably the complainants would not have approached this Forum.  This is nothing but deficiency in service.  When the application was presented within 17 days the opposite party would have honoured the cheque and the application-cum-deposit-slip, but instead of that they made dodged the complainant.

9.       The amount of compensation and costs that is going to be imposed on the opposite party, the opposite party may recover it from its personnel who were there at counter No.13 on 17.10.2011 for which this order will not come in that way.  The opposite party is not a private bank, it is meant for public service, the personnel are there because of the public and not on their own, they have to serve the public, they have to behave properly with the public.  Otherwise the banking instruction will be ruined and the customers will come to the street.  Hence those personnel have to be reprimanded and dealt with seriously.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.       The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.       The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation within 30 days from the date of this order.

3.       The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation.

4.        The opposite party is directed to comply to the above said order as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 9^th Day of January 2012)

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT