Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/176/2013

INDIAN BANK, THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR - Complainant(s)

Versus

K. RAGHUNATHAN - Opp.Party(s)

R.R.K. ASSOCIATES

25 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI - 600 003.

 BEFORE   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                   ::     PRESIDENT                       

                  Tmt.Dr.S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                            ::      MEMBER

 

F.A. No.176/2013

  (Against the order dt.01.03.2013 made in C.C. No.169/2008 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Chennai (South))

                         DATED THE 25^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

Indian Bank,

No.66, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

Now at:-

Nos.254-260,  Avvai Shanmugham Salai,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

 

2. The Chief Manager,

Indian Bank,

Arya Gowda Road,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                 ... Appellants 1 & 2 / Opposite parties 1 & 2.

 

- Versus –

 

K. Raghunathan,

S/o. Late K. Krishnaswamy,

No.9, New No.12, Balakrishna Mudali Street,

West Mambalam,

Chennai – 600 033.                                                         ..Respondent /Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants /Opposite parties            : M/s. R.R.K. Associates

Counsel for Respondent /Complainant             : M/s. K. Ganesan

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing today, on 25.02.2022 and on hearing the arguments of both parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order in open court :-

ORDER

Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI:

            This appeal has been filed by the appellants / opposite parties 1 & 2 under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South).

 

1.         The factual background culminating  in to  appeal is as follows:-

The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties contending inter alia that the complainant was having current account bearing No.445008072 with the 2^nd opposite party for more than a decade and has not availed any loan or DD facility from the opposite parties. It was further submitted that on 26.02.2006 the 2^nd opposite party has charged a sum of Rs.68/- on the ground of EWC charges which was debited twice on 25^th & 26^th February 2006 and was reverted back after a follow up of 15 days.  Likewise on 30.06.2006, an amount of Rs.37/- was charged as debit charges erroneously and the same was reverted back after 15 days. On 31.07.2006, an amount of Rs.37/- on account of automatic debit interest account was charged wrongly by the 2^nd opposite party when the complainant has not availed any loan or OD facility and the same was returned on 27.12.2006 after a hectic follow up of 150 days.   On 30.09.2006, the 2^nd opposite party again charged a sum of Rs.337/- on account of non-maintaining of minimum balance charges falsely when the complainant was having a balance of Rs.45,848.17/- in his account on the said day.  The mistake was rectified and the amount was revert back after a follow up for a period of 60 days.   On 01.02.2007, the 2^nd opposite party further debited a sum of Rs.25/- for withdrawal charges especially when there was core banking system and the said amount was also credited back after a follow up.   Also on 02.07.2007, the 2^nd opposite party debited a sum of Rs.113/-  mistakenly being the withdrawal transfer wherein the local cheque of opposite parties Tanjore Branch was deposited at Tanjore by one of the customers of the complainant.  Further on 27.03.2007, the opposite parties charged Rs.25/- for a transaction of multi city cheque issued by the complainant’s client erroneously.  On 06.11.2007, the complainant had deposited a cheque of CBS Indian Bank, Tirunelvei Branch for Rs.5,000/- but to his surprise the amount could not be transferred immediately since the signature of the other end could not be scanned and verified by the opposite parties for the reasons best known to them.  The complainant was made to contact the other party to scan the signature and send it and even after sending it to the 2^nd opposite party the amount was not transferred.  However after strenuous efforts on 10.11.2000, the amount was credited after the closure of business hours.  On 10.10.2007, a requisition was given by the complainant  for 50 cheque leaves however, the opposite parties issued 100 cheque leaves and the complainant was made to pay an extra amount of Rs.150/- for the extra cheque leaves.  Thus, the complainant alleging gross negligence, deficiency in service and dereliction of duty filed the complaint against the opposite parties after issuance of a legal notice claiming Rs.90,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by him along with a direction to the opposite parties to create and maintain a transparent accounting system and uniform procedure in all the branches to avoid duplication of debiting accounts. 

2.         The opposite parties refuting the allegations made by the complainant had filed the written version contending interallia that the complaint is misconceived and unsustainable.   Though it was admitted by the opposite parties that various debits were made erroneously on various occasions the said deductions were re-credited or retransferred to the complainant’s account.  They submitted that the duration of rectification is not wantonly done but due to the fact that they are upgrading the system in 2006.  It is admitted by the opposite parties that out of the 6 instances except one all other items are system generated transactions and that they have refunded the amount whenever wrongly debited except transactions made on 01.02.2007 & 02.07.2007 which are not refundable invoking the guidelines of the bank.  It is also stated by the opposite parties that with regard to the averment that when the complainant requested for 100 cheque leaves the opposite party had given 150 cheque leaves thereby causing monetary loss, it was stated that earlier only 50 cheque leaves book was available hence, after providing the same, the 100 cheque leaves book was given which amounted to 150 cheque leaves and hence there was no fault on them.   Further, the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint alleging that the errors occurred only due to the technical fault and not wantonly.  

3.         The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A38 were marked.  On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and Ex.B1 was marked.

4.         The learned District commission considering the pleadings and documents produced by both the parties allowed the complaint in part holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and also had committed unfair trade practice and further directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.40,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant along with a direction to maintain to proper accounting system.

5.         Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties had preferred the present appeal before this Commission. 

6.         Point for consideration:-

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and if so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

7.         Point:-

Heard the arguments adduced by both the parties and also perused the written arguments filed by them.  The opposite parties had not denied the wrongful debits made by them but defended the said defects that only in January 2006 the Core Banking System had started and hence, due to unskilled employees the errors had occurred.  Further, they also submitted that the defects had been cured by re-crediting the wrongful debits within 1 to 3 months and the delay if any is caused only due to the fact that they are upgrading and hence the delay is not wantonly done.   It is also admitted by them in the written version that due to the technical fault the errors had occurred.   Thus they sought for setting aside the findings rendered by the District Commission alleging that they had not committed any deficiency in service and prayed to allow the appeal. 

8.         On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently argued supporting the findings rendered  by the District Commission.

9.         We have perused the pleadings, material records and also the findings rendered by the learned District Commission.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that they had not made the error entries but they have admitted the same citing reasons that due to technical fault and as the banking system was upgrading from January 2006.  In such circumstances, we also should appreciate the fact that whatever the amounts had been erroneously debited has been re-credited to the complainant’s account i.e. to say the errors had been rectified by the opposite parties except on two occasions within a reasonable time.   Hence, being a Public Sector Undertaking the opposite parties should not be burdened with a huge amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation.  Thus in the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it would be proper to award a compensation of Rs.20,000/-  that would suffice.   Thus we answer the point holding that the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service and that the complainant is entitled to compensation and we fix the amount of compensation as  Rs.20,000/-.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     In the facts and circumstances, we order no cost in this appeal.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the Order dt.01.03.2013 and made in C.C. No.169/2008 on the file of District Commission, Chennai (South) is modified to the extent that the compensation awarded is reduced to Rs.20,000/- .  All other reliefs granted by the District Commission is hereby confirmed.

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                                                                         R. SUBBIAH             

          MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT