BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; FATEHABAD.

Complaint Case No.48 of 2017.

Date of Instt.: 22.02.2017.

Date of Decision: 08.09.2017.

Narshi Ram son of Surja Ram resident of Village Chinder, Tehsil and  District Fatehabad Haryana.

          ..Complainant

     Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd., Opposite Buna Crossing, G.T. Road, Fatehabad, Tehsil and District Fatehabad.

                                                                        ..Respondent

Before:       Sh.Raghbir Singh, President.

                   Mrs.Ansuya Bishnoi, Member.

                   Sh.R.S.Panghal, Member.

Present:       Sh. A.S.Marothia, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh.M.K.Dharinia, Advocate for the respondent.

ORDER

                   The present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he has a bank account bearing No.1099104000013299 with the respondent. It is further submitted that on 22.12.2016 the complainant visited the respondent for depositing an amount of Rs.6000/- (old currency notes) in his account with the respondent. However the cashier of the respondent refused to accept for depositing the amount in excess of Rs.4500/- and informed the complainant that the respondent is accepting only up to the amount of Rs.4500/- and flatly refused to accept the amount in excess of Rs,4500/-. The complainant further requested the other officials of the respondent, but nobody bothered about his request. Thereafter the complainant made a complaint to L.D.M., Fatehabad regarding the incident. However the complaint made by the complainant was rejected by the L.D.M. It is further submitted that the respondent intentionally and willingly refused to accept the amount in excess of Rs.4500/- Therefore on account of deficiency in rendering service by the respondent the complainant has suffered mental agony and physical harassment.  Hence, this complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the respondent appeared in the Forum through counsel and resisted the complaint by filing a writen version. In reply the respondent has taken various preliminary objections i.e.that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant has no locus-stand to file the present complaint and the complainant has not come with clean hands before this Forum etc.. In reply on merits, it is admitted that the complainant has a bank account with the respondent. However the allegation made by the complainant that the bank had refused to accept the amount in excess of Rs.4500/- has been denied  being false and baseless. It is further submitted in the reply that during the period of demonetarization there was a limit on exchange and withdrawal of the amount form the banks, but there was no restriction on deposit of the amount. Therefore, there was no reason to refuse the complainant from depositing the amount in excess of Rs.4500/-. It is also further submitted that on 22.12.2016 the complainant  visited the bank and deposited in his account an amount of Rs.4500/- in old currency notes and did not approach to deposit Rs.6000/- as alleged in the complainant. It is also further  submitted that on 22.12.2016 the respondent bank had got deposited an amount in excess of Rs.4500/- from various customers and there is no reason to deny to the complainant for the same. It is further submitted that the L.D.M., Fatehabad has rightly rejected the complaint of the complainant being false and base-less. The respondent has further prayed for dismissal of the complainant.

3.                In support of his complaint the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW1 and documents as Annexures 1, 1/A, 1/B, 2, 3 and 4. On the other hand the respondent in his evidence tendered the affidavit of Divyesh Vats, Branch Manager as Annexure R1.

4.                The counsel for the complainant in his arguments has reiterated the submissions made in the complaint and further contended that the respondent willingly and intentionally had refused to accept the amount in excess of Rs.4500/- taking the false excuse of demonetarization. The learned counsel further contended that the allegations made in the complaint against the respondent are absolutely correct otherwise there was no reason to make a complaint against the bank. The complainant has suffered mental agony, physical harassment on account of the action of the respondent. The counsel further prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for the respondent rebutted the contentions of the counsel for the complainant and reiterated the submissions made in the reply filed by the respondent to the complaint. The learned counsel further prayed for dismissal of the complaint being devoid of any merit.

6.                We have examined the entire record placed on the case file and have also considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. This is the case of the complainant that on 22.12.2016 when he visited the respondent for depositing the amount in his account, he was refused by the bank officials to deposit the amount in excess of Rs.4500/-. It is alleged by the complainant that on the false excuse of demonetarization the bank officials intentionally and willfully refused the complainant to deposit an amount in excess of Rs.4500/-. However, a perusal of the record of the case reveals that there is no document i.e. copy of voucher of Rs.6000/- filed by the complainant for depositing the alleged amount or other evidence or affidavit of any other witness to prove the allegations made by the complainant. On the other hand the respondent has averred that during the period of demonetarization there was no restriction or limitation for depositing the amount in the account by the holders of account and on the relevant date i.e. 22.12.2016 a number  account holders deposited the amount with the bank in excess of Rs.4500/-. Therefore, there is no reason to refuse the complainant for the same. A perusal of Annexure 1/B reveals that  on 22.12.2016 the respondent bank has accepted the amount in excess of Rs.4500/- from sixteen account holders.

                   Keeping in view the discussion as made above, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency against the respondent in rendering service to him. Accordingly, the present complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rules.  File be consigned after due compliance. 

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 08.09.2017.

                             (Raghbir Singh)                                                                                                 

                                    President

                                                                          (Ansuya Bisnoi)   (R.S.Panghal) 

District Consumer Disputes                                    Member                  Member          

 Redressal Forum, Fatehabad.