Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/240/2023

Indian Bank, Kailarmalai Branch, Rep. By its Branch Head, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Karupanan, S/o Ramasamy Goundar, - Opp.Party(s)

RRK Associates

31 Jul 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

 

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

                 THIRU R  VENKATESAPERUMAL          :    MEMBER

F.A. No.240/2023

(Against the Order made in C.C.No.03/2017 dated:19.09.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.C., Namakkal)

 

DATED THE 31^ST DAY OF JULY 2023

 

M/s. Indian Bank,

Kabilarmalai Branch,

Represented by its Branch Head,

No.2/128, D Paundamangalam Main Road,

Kabilarmalai,

Namakkal District,

Namakkal – 637 204.                     .. Appellant / 1^st Opposite party. 

 

-Versus-

1. Mr. Karuppannan,

S/o. Mr. Ramasamy Gounder,

No.4/128, Kudi Street,

Sellapampalayam Selur Post,

Paramathi Velur Taluk,

Namakkal District.                         .. 1^st Respondent / Complainant.

 

2. The Managing Director &

Chief Executive Officer,

M/s. Indian Bank – Corporate Office,

PB No.5555, 254-260, Avvai Shanmugam Salai,

Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014. 

 

3. The Chief General Manager,

M/s. Reserve Bank of India,

Fort Glacis,

No.16, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.    .. Respondents 2 & 3 / Opposite parties 2 & 3. 

 

Counsel for the Appellant / 1^st Opposite party   : M/s. R.R.K.

                                                                      Associates

Counsel for the 1^st Respondent / Complainant  : M/s. N. Jayakumar

Respondents 2 & 3 / Opposite parties 2 & 3     : Notice dispensed 

                                                                      with

                The 1^st respondent as complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain directions.  The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order, allowing the complaint. Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Namakkal dt. 19.09.2019 in C.C. No.03/2017.

 

        This petition came before us for hearing finally, today and upon hearing the arguments of the Appellant and 1^st repondent, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

Thiru. R VENKATESA PERUMAL , MEMBER                      

        1.  The 1^st opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2.     The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is a customer of 1^st opposite party from 27.08.2012.  The complainant had fixed deposit accounts apart from the Savings Bank Account No.6059935411 with the 1^st opposite party. The complainant after reconciling the statement and various entries of withdrawals and credits, was shocked to note that on 25.02.2014, an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- has been illegally withdrawn from the complainant’s account using withdrawal slip.    Immediately, he reported it to the Senior Bank officials of the 1^st opposite party.   On 28.08.2016, a complaint was also lodged before the Inspector of Police, Jedarpalayam Police Station but no FIR was registered.  The complainant had received an acknowledgment for his complaint bearing No.201617006001735 dt.22.10.2016 from the office of the Banking Ombudsman.  But the office of the Ombudsman put the matter on hold despite repeated calls and reminders of the complainant.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has filed the complaint before the District Commission claiming refund of a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% from the date of withdrawal  and Rs.15,00,000/- towards compensation for physical strain, harassment, financial loss, inconvenience, frustration and mental agony and cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

3.     Though the opposite party has entered appearance through a Counsel but failed to file written version and hence, the opposite parties 1 to 3 were set exparte.  Consequently, the District Commission passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the claim as against the 3^rd opposite party and by directing the opposite parties 1 & 2 jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards monitory loss to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

4.     Aggrieved over the said order, this appeal is preferred by the 1^st opposite party praying for setting aside the order and for a chance to contest the case on merits. 

5.     Before this Commission, the counsel for the appellant / 1^st opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Therefore, the appellant / 1^st opposite party sought this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merits.

6.     When the case had come up before this Commission on 20.07.2023, after hearing the submission of the appellant, this Commission had felt that in order to give a chance to the 1^st opposite party to agitate their right on merits, the appeal could be allowed so that the appellant will have a chance of contesting the case on merits.   However, considering the lethargic attitude of the 1^st opposite party in not filing written version before the District Commission, we imposed a cost of Rs.3,000/- to be paid to the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission on or before 28.07.2023.  Today, when the matter appeared in the list it was reported that the condition imposed by this Commission has been complied with.    Hence, this appeal is allowed today by remanding back the complaint to the District Commission for fresh disposal according to law. 

 In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Consumer Commission, Namakkal in   C.C. No.03/2017 dt.19.09.2019 and the matter is remanded back to the District Consumer Commission, Namakkal for fresh disposal according to law and on merits.

The District Commission is directed to issue notice to all the parties for their appearance and on such appearance, directed to proceed with the case and dispose the same within three months according to law and on merits.

The amount deposited by the appellant / 1^st opposite party shall remain in the custody of this Commission, till the disposal of the original complaint.

 

   R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                            R. SUBBIAH

                 MEMBER                                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

Index :  Yes/ No

 

KIR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/July/2023.