Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

510/2005

natraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

K.Mohan

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   31.08.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   18.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                  : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II  

       

C.C.NO.510/2005

WEDNESDAY THIS  18^TH  DAY OF JANUARY  2017

 

Mr. Natraj @ Natarajan,

No.E-77, 12^th West Street,

Kamaraj Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600 041.                                          ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

The Manager,

ICICIC Bank,

No.25, First Avenue,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai 83.                                                     ..Opposite party

 

For the Complainant                   :    M/s. K. Mohan & others   

For the opposite party                 :    M/s. M.Rajamanickam & another  

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act to seek direction  to pay a sum Rs.25,000/- debited by the opposite party bank and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and loss and to pay cost of the complaint.

 

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

         The complainant who is an interior decorator and he is a account holder of the opposite party bank bearing account No.007701008821.  The complainant stated that on 3.6.2005 one of his debtor who owns to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant and the same transferred the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant’s  said account by way of internet and the same was also credited to the complainant’s account and he also transferred  yet another sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant account  by same way on 6.6.3005 as remaining balance of Rs.50,000/-.  The said transferred was informed to the complainant by his debtor and thereby he discharged the entire liability against the complainant.   Therefore the complainant was being under the impression that his account will stand with the credit of more than Rs.50,000/- excluding the sum stand in Auto Sweep account.   Hence the complainant requested his one of creditor to whom he was issued a post dated cheque of Rs.60,000/- and to present the said cheque on 8.6.2005 for collection, in compliance to the request of the complainant the said creditor presented the said cheque to his account on 8.6.2005 but the same was dishonoured by the opposite party with reason stating that insufficiency of funds in the complainant account.   

2.     The said fact has been brought to the knowledge of the complainant, after the complainant succumbed to harsh treatment at the hands of his creditor approached the opposite party bank with a query to know what had happened in his account.    The opposite party has stated the complainant that the sum of Rs.25,000/- so transferred by one of the complainant debtor on 3.6.2005 was being debited by the opposite party bank in mistakenly without any authorization of the complainant due to some technical error in the system and promised the complainant that same will be rectified as soon.    However instead of rectify the deficiency the opposite party still kept the grievance of complainant as rotten wound and further caused hardship and the credit balance of the complainant is still being shown as short of Rs.25,000/-.   Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated 18.6.2005 to the opposite party for claiming compensation for deficiency of service.   Even after the receipt of the legal notice there was no reply on the side of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version of  opposite party is  in brief as follows:

         The opposite party denies all the allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The transfer of Rs.25,000/- on 3.6.2005 by Mr. Ramanathan Balasubramanian through internet was reversed on 4.6.2005.  The said transaction failed due to technical problem and the amount of Rs.25,000/- was reversed to the account of Mr. Ramanathan Balasubramanian from where is has been received.   Thus there is no transfer of amount of Rs.25,000/- as on 4.6.2005 in the account of the complainant.  Therefore, on 6.6.2005 through Internet under a successful transaction a sum of Rs.25,000/- was transferred to the account of the complainant from the account of Mr. Ramanathan Balasubramanian.   Therefore only a sum of Rs.25,000/- was  received from the account of Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian to the account of the complainant as on 6.6.2005.  

4.     When the cheque for Rs.60,000/- issued by the complainant came in collection was to be retuned due to the reason of insufficient funds, since on that day the balance in the account of the complainant was only Rs.24,489.17.  It is not correct to say that as the corresponding credit was a error transaction as per the system the said sum of Rs.25,000/- was immediately reversed to the account from where it came.   Therefore the allegation that there was deficiency on the part of the opposite party and the opposite party did not rectify the said deficiency but kept the grievance alive is not correct.   The opposite party explained and clarified the things to the complainant when he met the officials of the opposite party.     The allegation of complainant on the basis of assumption that the complainant had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the account of Mr. Ramanathan Balasubramanian through transfer is frivolous and is not sustainable.  Therefore, the complaint filed without impleading the necessary party is not maintainable and hence this complaint is liable to be  dismissed with cost.  

 

5.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2  marked on the side of the opposite party.

 

6.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

7.      POINT NO.1

According to the case of the complainant is that on transfer of sum of Rs.25,000/- each for two occasions  on 3.6.2005 and 6.6.2005 totaling of Rs.50,000/- by Mr. Ramanathan Balasubramanian who is a debtor and thereby the outstanding balance in the complainant’s account is of Rs.50,000/- and on brief over that the complainant, issued a post dated cheque of Rs.60,000/- to one of this creditor with instruction to present on the said cheque on 8.6.2005 for collection but it was brought to the knowledge of the complainant that the said cheque was dishonored for the reason as insufficient found in his account and after approach of the complainant to the opposite party bank for rectification the opposite party has not done so and thereby committed deficiency of service.

8.     On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by the opposite party by stating that it is utterly incorrect to say that as on 6.6.2005 the amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited in the complainant’s account by means of transfer through internet from the account of Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian and in fact, the transfer of the amount of Rs.25,000/- by the said  Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian on 3.6.2005 has been reversed to the account of the Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian on 4.6.2005 and thereby the transfer amount of Rs.25,000/- on 6.6.2005 only credited in the account of the complainant.   Therefore, on the day of presentation of the cheque issued by the complainant, there was no sufficient funds available in the complainant’s account and hence the cheque was dishonoured and therefore there is not only single act of  deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

9.     At this juncture,  on careful perusal of  the rival submissions put forth on either side, it is not disputed that the complainant is a account holder with the opposite party bank and the transfer of amount of Rs.25,000/- by one Mr.Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian on 6.6.2005 to the complainant’s account are all not disputed.   But only dispute in this complaint by the opposite party that the transfer amount of Rs.25,000/- from the account of the Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian on 3.6.2005 was immediately reversed to the account of the said Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian  even on 4.6.2005 itself due to technical problem and therefore it is not correct to say that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was credited as on 6.6.2005 from the complainant’s account of Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian.

10.    In such circumstances, the bounden duty of the complainant is to prove that the above two transfer made by his debtor namely Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian was successfully done, by means of concrete evidence.   At the outset on perusal of Ex.A1 statement of account issued by the opposite party, it is found that though on 3.6.2005 amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in the complainant’s account on transfer and on 4.6.2005 the said amount was withdrawn from his account on the day itself, the amount of Rs.25,000/- auto sweep account and thereby the outstanding balance in the complainant’s account on 4.6.2005 was only Rs.12,077.17.    Further, it is seen that on 6.6.2005 the amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited in the complainant‘s account on transfer of account of  Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian and the balance comes to Rs.36,677.17.

11.    It is further noticed from the said account as on 8.6.2005 the balance in the account of the complainant is only Rs.24,489.17 and therefore on that day the cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured as insufficient fund.   The above said facts are quiet clear from Ex.A1 which is marked by the complainant himself.   At this point of time Ex.B1 Statement of account of the complainant and Ex.B2 statement of account of Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian filed by the opposite party also clearly reveals the above said facts as pointed out by the opposite party  in his written version as well as proof affidavit.   

12.    Such being so, the plea taken by the complainant that if both of the amounts transfer by Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian on 3.6.2005 and 6.6.2005 have been deposited in his complainant’s account and right person to enlighten the said fact is only  Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian who is the one of the debtor of the complainant as alleged in the complaint.    But the said Mr.Ramanathan Balasubramanian neither examined before this forum on the side of the complainant nor he has impleaded as party in this complaint.   Moreover,  the complainant has not come forward to place any relevant document to show that the amounts alleged transfer on 3.6.2005  was successfully transferred to the complainant’s account, except the legal notice Ex.A3 issued by the complainant and acknowledgment card  Ex.A4 to that effect.  

13.    At this point of time though Ex.A2 cheque issued by the complainant was dishonoured but it is not on the fault of the opposite party.  It is only for the reason as insufficient fund in the complainant’s  account.  Hence the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party has not been proved by the complainant by means of acceptable evidence.    Therefore there is no fault in any way on the side of the opposite party.  Whereas, the opposite party disprove the allegation made by the complainant through Ex.B1 & Ex.B2. Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

14.   Point No.2:      

       As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  18^th  day  of  January 2017.

        

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-                     Copy of Statement of accounts issued by the opposite party

Ex.A2                      Copy of dishonoured Cheque.

Ex.A3-                      18.6.2005  - Copy of legal notice by the complainant.

Ex.A4-                     Copy of Ack Card. 

 

Opposite parties’ side document: - 

Ex.B1-             Copy of statement of account of complainant.

Ex.B2-             Copy of statement of account of Mr. Ramanathan

                            Balasubramanian

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.