Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/343/2013

Thilakaraj - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mrs. Sathya Srinivasan - Opp.Party(s)

K.Sukumaran

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

   Date of Filing :   30.11.2011

                                                                      Date of Order :   21.10.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM,CHENNAI(SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : 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.343/ 2013

FIRDAY THIS  21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

Thilakarajan,

S/o. Sakthivel,

Residing at 5/1, 1^st Street,

State Bank Colony,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai 600 092.                                                         ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

1.  The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

Card Products Division,

Post Bag 29128,

52/60, M.G.Road,

Mumbai 400 001.

India.

 

2. Mrs. Sathya Srinivasan,

Nodal Officer,

The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

No.96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai -4.

 

3. The Manager- Debt Management

Consumer Credit Risk,

The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

Card Products Division,

Post Bag 29128,

52/60, M.G. Road,

Mumbai 400 001.

India.

 

4. Miss. G.Nandini,

Senior Officer,

Customer Service,

The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

Chennai -4.

 

5. Mr. Santhosh Nandakumaran,

Authorized Signatory,

Centralized Retail Assets Processing Unit,

The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

Umang, Plot CTS No.1406-A/28,

Mind Space, Behind Inorbit Maill,

New Link Road,

Malad (West),

Mumbai – 400 064.

 

6. The Hongkong and Shanghi Banking

Corporation Limited,

No.96, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 4.                                                      ..Opposite parties.    

 

 

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

For the opposite parties          :    M/s. S. Prashant & others.  

 

 

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.

ORDER

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-  

 

The complainant submit that he availed loan facility with the opposite parties under the category of My terms Credit – PLOC i.e personal line of credit and as per the said facility complainant was sanctioned PLOC for Rs.66,000/- and the period of over draft for 12 months and the time was periodically extended taking into consideration of regularization of the complainant and an advice was issued on 13.10.2006.  The complainant further submit that he has been holding the said account No.041-770488-001 for more than three years and in so far as above said account the complainant cannot be construed as a defaulter in any respect and he was bonafide customer of the opposite parties.  While so on 20.02.2010 the complainant was informed that the loan account No.041-770488-001 of the complainant was closed and also received call from HSBC Debt / Collection department, and the complainant came to know about the unauthorized conversation of the above said account into HSBC personal loan, without getting any proper approval from the complainant.  When the complainant has sent several emails to the opposite parties bringing the above said facts to the knowledge of the opposite parties, whereas the opposite parties by their emails at the beginning has taken  stand that the said conversation of the account was taken place on the consent of the complainant and executing several documents by the complainant by saying they have enquired and investigated the matter, whereas finally the opposite parties has came to conclusion as per the email letter, dated 10.03.2010, that after investigation they have “confirmed that  the account of the complainant was converted to a personal loan account erroneously  due to clerical oversight and the same was done without any prejudice” as such they admitted that the said account was converted erroneously for which the complainant is not given any consent.  However even after this communication sent by the opposite parties, the opposite parties has also sent letter dated 23.03.2010 to the complainant demanding the complainant for the payment of due under the said erroneously changed account.  As such the act of the opposite parties  amounts to deficiency of service and the said mistake was also not rectified immediately by taking necessary steps   by the opposite party despite of several email communications made by the complainant, which were caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  As such the complainant sought for to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay the cost of the complaint.  Hence the complaint.

Written Version of  opposite parties are  in briefly as follows:

2.     The opposite parties denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The  opposite parties submit that the complainant availed loan facility under category Personal Line of Credit Account (PLOC) on 17.10.2006 with a sanctioned limit of Rs.66,000/-.   On 20.2.2010 thereafter the 1^st opposite party issued a letter to the complainant informing him that the personal line of credit account was closed, since the complainant had applied for conversion into a Personal Loan on 5.2.2010 which was sanctioned at Rs.64800/- for a loan period of 48 moths and interest @ 11% p.a with EMI payable @ 1675/-.  In this regard the email dated 5.3.2010 was received by the 1^st opposite party from the complainant stating he had not requested for any closure of his existing loan account.    The  opposite parties further submit that the 1^st opposite party had sent email communication dated 19.3.2010 informing the complainant that disputed Personal loan has been closed and that they are sending their officials for personal visit to the complainant’s residence to verify the details submitted by the complainant disputing the same allegedly taken by him.   On the same day the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant investigation revealed with disputed loan account belongs to different account holder and further informing the complainant his Personal Line of Credit account was erroneously converted to Personal Loan account due to clerical oversight and the same was done without any prejudice.    Due to the above said clerical error no loss, prejudice or hardship was caused to the complainant.   In fact within a period of 20 days the entire issue was resolved by the 1^st opposite party to the satisfaction of the complainant.     Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Proof affidavit of  opposite parties filed and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1.   Whether the opposite parties had committed  deficiency of

 service as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.   Whether the complainant is  entitled for the relief sought for

in the complaint?  If so to what extent ?

 

 

5.    POINTS 1 and 2 :

Perused the complaint filed by the complainant, written version filed by the opposite parties and the proof affidavits filed by complainant and opposite parties the documents Ex.A1 to A15 filed on the side of the complainant and considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and for the opposite parties.

6.     There is no dispute that the complainant availed loan facility with the opposite parties under the category of My terms credit – PLOC i.e Personal line of credit and as per the said facility complainant was sanctioned PLOC for Rs.66,000/- and the period of over draft for 12 months and the time was periodically extended taking into consideration of regularization of the complainant and an advice was issued on 13.10.2006 the same is filed as Ex.A1.  Further the complainant has been holding the said account No. 041-770488-001 for more than 3 years and in so far as above said account the complainant cannot be construed as defaulter in any respect and he was bonafide of the opposite parties.  While so on 20.02.2010 complainant was informed that the loan account No.041-770488-001 of the complainant was closed  and also received call from HSBC debt / collection department and the complainant came to know about the unauthorized conversation of the above said account into HSBC personal loan, without getting any proper approval from the complainant. When the complainant has sent several emails to the opposite parties bringing the above said facts to the knowledge of the opposite parties, whereas the opposite parties by their emails at the beginning has taken  stand that the said conversation of the account was taken place on the consent of the complainant and executing several documents by the complainant by saying that they have enquired and investigated the matter, whereas finally the opposite parties has came to conclusion as per the email letter Ex.A11, dated 19.03.2010, that after investigation they have “confirmed that  the account of the complainant to be converted to a personal loan account erroneously  due to clerical oversight and the same was done without any prejudice” as such they admitted that the said account was converted erroneously for which the complainant is not given any consent.  However even after this communication sent by the opposite parties, the opposite parties has also sent letter dated 23.03.2010 to the complainant demanding the complainant for the payment of due under the said erroneously changed account Ex.A13 proves the same.  However on the proposal of demanding compensation for the email sent by the complainant to the opposite parties, the opposite parties has sent letter Ex.A14 dated 31.03.2010, stating  “….. we sincerely apologies for the inconvenience  caused in this regard.  We hereby informed that your subject mentioned PLOC Personal Line of Credit Account was erroneously closed and we are reinstated the loan account with the same account number and as on date you do not hold any personal loan account with us”  as such the opposite parties has finally confirmed and admitted the mistake committed by them in changing the account of the complainant from its original PLOC i.e Personal Line of credit account into  personal loan account, expressing the apologies for their above act and have stated that the said original account has been reinstated and there is no such personal loan account in the name of complainant.

7.     The complainant has raised grievance that the erroneously change of complainant’s account from PLOC to personal loan account and communications were sent in this regard to the complainant and demand for due under the said erroneous account again made by the opposite party to the complainant are amounts to deficiency of service and the said mistake was also not rectified immediately by taking necessary steps by the opposite party despite of several email communications made by the complainant, which were caused mental agony to the complainant as such the complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite party with Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

8.     Whereas the opposite party has resisted the complaint by contending that the mistake in closing the PLOC account of the complainant and converted the same into personal loan account was taken place erroneously due to the mistake of the opposite party bank staff concerned by oversight, when it was found out  the same was rectified without causing any loss to the complainant and also restored the original account  of the complainant with  tendering their  apology for the said mistake by sending necessary letter to the complainant by Ex.A14.  Therefore claiming compensation by the complainant against the opposite party is not proper, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9.     However considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the opposite parties bank as admittedly has committed mistake in converting the complainant’s PLOC account which was maintained by him with the opposite parties without any complaint or default for more than 3 years   and when the said mistake was brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties in month of February 2010 by sending several emails, the opposite parties without taking immediate steps and proper investigation by saying in the beginning  that the account was converted at the instance of complainant only, subsequently came forward to say that the said account was  mistakenly converted the said account are all revealed from the email communications and letters sent by the opposite parties.  The complainant was made to suffer  hardship and mental agony for the same, though they have rectified the mistake and tender their apology by letter Ex.A4 dated 19.03.2010 at the final stage.   It is also pertinent to mention that the opposite parties having found out that the said mistake was done and the same was communicated to the complainant by letter Ex.A11, subsequently by letter Ex.A13,  dated 23.03.2010, demanded the amount due under the mistakenly converted account from the complainant.  Which are all appears that the opposite parties i.e. the bank, as well as its staffs have negligently  and without taking any proper care have handled the functioning of the said bank which has caused the complaint mentioned problems of converting the complainant’s original  account into another account and also made demand of payment of the due under the said account from the complainant for which the complainant is not liable to pay, were caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant though the said mistake was rectified and apology was tendered by the opposite parties.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for the compensation against the opposite parties.  Since the opposite parties 2 to 5 are the staffs who may be responsible for the said mistake, since they are the employees / staffs of the 1^st and 6^th opposite parties, the 1^st and 6^th opposite parties are vicariously liable to compensate the complainant.  However the claim of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- made in the complaint is exorbitant, Therefore considering the facts and circumstances of this case,  we are of the considered view that the opposite parties are liable to pay  a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation to the complainant towards  mental  agony  and  suffering  caused  above  said  act  of  the opposite  parties.     The    complainant is also entitled a sum of Rs.5000/- towards the litigation expenses against the opposite parties.  Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered. 

In the result, this complaint is partly allowed.  The 1^st and 6^th opposite parties  bank are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards the compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the complainant within six weeks from the date of  this order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.10000/- will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this order to till the date of payment. No order as against the other opposite parties who are the staffs of the 1^st and 6^th opposite parties.

Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the  21^st   day  of  October   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                    MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s Side documents :

Ex.A1- 13.10.2006     - Copy of Facility Acceptance Advice issued by HSBC.

Ex.A2- 20.2.2010      - Copy of letter from HSBC to Mr.Thilakarajan Sakthivel of

                               Virugambakkam, Chennai 20.2.2010.

 

Ex.A3- 5.3.2010        - Copy of email sent by Sakthivel, Thilakarajan to HSBC.

Ex.A4- 10.3.2010      - Copy of email  from Sakthivel Thilakarajan to HSBC.

Ex.A5- 12.3.2010      - Copy of letter from HSBC to complainant.

Ex.A6- 16.3.2010      - Copy of email from HSBC to complainant.

Ex.A7- 17.3.2010      - Copy of email from complainant to HSBC.

Ex.A8- 18.3.2010      - Copy of email from HSBC to complainant.

Ex.A9- 18.3.2010      - Copy of email from complainant to HSBC.

Ex.A10- 19.3.2010     - Copy of email from HSBC to complainant.

Ex.A11- 19.3.2010     - Copy of email from HSBC to complainant.

Ex.A12- 19.3.2010     - Copy of email from complainant to HSBC.

Ex.A13- 23.3.2010     - Copy of letter from HSBC to Complainant.

Ex.A14- 31.3.2010     - Copy of letter of apologize issued by HSBC.

Ex.A15- 5.8.2010      - Copy of legal notice.

                     

Opposite parties’ side documents: -    .. Nil ..

 

 

MEMBER-I                    MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.