Haryana

Sonipat

CC/40/2015

VIRENDER KUAMR S/O CHHATTAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

R.D. SHARMA

26 Aug 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SONEPAT.

 

 

                                Complaint No.40 of 2015

                                Instituted on:12.02.2015

                                Date of order:26.08.2015

 

 

Virender Kumar son of Chhattar Singh resident of 52-13 Sikka Colony, Sonepat.

                                           ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

ICICI Bank Sikka Colony Branch, Luthra House, Delhi road, Sonepat through its Branch Manager.

 

                                           ...Respondent.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

 

Argued by: Sh. RD Sharma Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. Parveen Rathi Adv. for respondent.

          

BEFORE-  NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

        SMT.PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

        D.V.RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondent alleging therein that he is having bank account with the respondent vide account no.662301514131.  He has issued cheque no.018950 dated 25.1.2015 to Harsh Binding, but the said cheque was return with the remarks account blocked.  Due to this, said Harsh Binding to whom the cheque was issued, contacted the complainant as to why the account has been blocked.  The complainant immediately contacted the respondent and asked the respondent that if show cause notice has not been issued to him prior to blocking the saving bank account.  But the respondent has failed to give any satisfactory reply to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

2.        The respondent in the written statement has submitted that the account maintained by the complainant is  saving account and not for the purpose of business transaction.  As a precautionary measures in the interest of the complainant, the operation of the account has been frozen temporarily. However, freeze has been removed by the bank on 12.2.2015 and currently customer is operating the account normally.

3.        We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the account maintained by the complainant is  saving account and not for the purpose of business transaction.  As a precautionary measures in the interest of the complainant, the operation of the account has been frozen temporarily. However, freeze has been removed by the bank on 12.2.2015 and currently customer is operating the account normally.

          From the above contentions, it is clear that the account of the complainant was freezed by the respondent. The complainant has been able to prove his case that his account was blocked/freezed by the respondent bank without any information, without his consent and without issuing any prior notice.  Accordingly, it is held that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          The complainant by way of present complaint has claimed Rs.4,50,000/- under the head of compensation and cost of litigation from the respondent. But this amount is on a very higher side.  However, we hereby direct the respondent bank to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.5000/- (Rs.five thousands) for rendering deficient services, for causing unnecessary mental agony, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

 

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed partly. 

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati Member) (DV Rathi Member)     (Nagender Singh-President)

DCDRF, Sonepat.      DCDRF Sonepat         DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:26.08.2015