Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/211/2017

D.Karthick - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Hemalatha, suresh

11 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  03.07.2017 

                                                                        Date of Order :  11.04.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

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

C.C. No.211/2017

WEDNESDAY THIS 11^TH  DAY OF APRIL 2018

 

Mr. D. Karthik,

No.1/156, Vellalar Street,

Pallathur,

Pattukottai,

Thanjavur – 614 803.                                             .. Complainant

                                                       ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Having its Registered Office at:

Nos.36-38 A, Nariman Bhavan,

227, Nariman Point,

Mumbai – 400 021.

 

2. M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

No.10/7, Umiya Land Mark,

Lavelle Road,

Next to Chancery Hotel,

Bangalore – 560 001.

 

3.  M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory,

Egmore Branch, Ceebros Centre,

No.39, Montieth Road,

Egmore,

Chennai – 600 008.                                           .. Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. Hemalatha Suresh & others   

Counsel for opposite parties    :    Exparte.

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for loss of reputation to the complainant and to pay cost of the compliant.

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

                The complainant had opened Insta S.B. Account vide Account No.7911393283 in the year 2014 for the purpose to deposit his salary.   The complainant had never operated the said S.B. Account right from the date of opening since the complainant had worked for three months alone and also not used the cheque book bearing Nos.000001 to 000005 which was issued by the 1^st opposite party branch.   The complainant submits that all of a sudden he had received a notice from the 1^st opposite party office vide letter ref. No.KSPL/072016/ECS-99, dated:28.07.2016 and ICLC/Kotak.B-14/SPLN/Oct.16, Dated:03.10.2016 and he was shocked to see the contents of the notice dated:28.07.2016 & 03.10.2016 stating that he had availed personal loan from the 1^st opposite party bank vide loan Agreement APAC.SPLN59658337 and the complainant opted with the 1^st opposite party branch office i.e. 3 & 4^th opposite parties herein and agreed for ECS clearance of the said loan amount with monthly EMI of Rs.8,319/- through the IDBI Bank Ltd., bearing bank MICR No.560259017 in IDBI Bank account No.08961045000192385 to debit a sum of Rs.8,319/- p.m.

2.     The complainant submits that he has been falsely implicated and the opposite party inducted the complainant’s name and address in the place of some other third person loan agreement vide APAC. SPLN59658337 and the said loan agreement was not at all executed by the complainant with the opposite parties either registered office or branch office or anywhere in the world.   The complainant submits that as per the notice of the opposite parties dated:28.07.2016 & 03.10.2016, he had never opened any account with the IDBI Bank Ltd, Bangalore.  The complainant submits that in the opposite parties’ Advocate notice, it was stated that the complainant had issued cheque bearing no.225283, Dated:03.09.2016, drawn on IDBI Bank Ltd., Bangalore for a sum of Rs.24,957/- for discharging the liability but the cheque bearing No.225283 is not at all issued by the complainant.  The complainant submits that in this connection, he had contacted with the 3^rd opposite party’s office on 04.11.2016 and he had informed the same through the 3^rd opposite party office service request register vide No.1-5760189151 about the said loan agreement vide No.APAC.SPLN59658337.    At that time, the 3^rd opposite party had verified the said loan account and informed to the complainant stating that in the said loan account, they wrongly included the complainant name and address in some other third person name with address and the opposite parties were wrongly included the complainant’s name and address in some other third person loan account.  Thereafter, the opposite parties informed the complainant that his name and address will be removed shortly.  Hence the complainant has not taken any action as against the opposite parties.   Thereafter, the opposite parties were regularly sending e-mail to the complainant’s email account stating that “the Kodak bank loan account No.59658337 EMI payment of Rs.8,319/- was due and further states that as per our records, we had not yet received the same from you”.   After receiving the email, the complainant had sent a reply message through his email to the opposite parties employee email account on 21.10.2016.  But no, reply to that effect.

3.     The complainant submits that he received the notice from the Learned XXVI. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City in connection with C.C.P.C.R/13796/2016 for offence charged u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. r/w.138 N.I. Act which was filed by the opposite parties against the complainant for dishonour of cheque.  In the said court notice, the learned Magistrate had issued notice to the complainant to appear before the said court on 02.04.2017 without fail.    The complainant submit that once again he had approached the 3^rd opposite party and strongly opposed to that effect, then only, the 3^rd opposite party had issued letter dated 05.04.2017 stating that “this is with reference to your concern raised on the loan and regarding the legal notice against you as NON-PL customer of Kotak Mahindra Bank we sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused to you in this regard.   We wish to mention that the CRN 72267939 has been  mapped wrongly due to technical issue and the same has been rectified with new CRN Number 212543706 for the Kotak customer towards the personal loan agreement number SPLN 59658997”.  Therefore the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 17.03.2017 and the opposite parties received the same on 05.04.2017, then the 3^rd opposite party had issued a letter for accepting the contention mentioned in the complainant’s legal notice.  Hence the complaint is filed.

4.     Inspite of receipt of notice the opposite parties did not appear before this Forum and therefore, the opposite parties were set exparte.  

5.     Though the opposite parties remained exparte this Forum wants to dispose this compliant fully on merits with available materials records before this Forum. 

4.     In such circumstances, in order to prove the allegation made in the complaint the proof affidavit is filed by the complainant as his evidence, and also Ex.A1 to  Ex.A10  are marked. 

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of  reputation with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:

Heard the Complainant’s Counsel.  Perused the records namely the complaint, proof affidavit, documents, written argument etc. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant opened an Insta SB Account vide A/c. No.7911393283 in the year 2014 with             the 1^st opposite party.  But the complainant has not operated the account from inception itself.  Further, the complainant contended that all of a sudden, the complainant received a notice from the 1^st opposite party dated:28.07.2016 and the 3^rd opposite party dated:03.10.2016 vide Ex.A1 & Ex.A2, stating that the complainant has availed and executed a personal loan agreement and agreed for ECS payment for EMI of Rs.8,319/- through IDBI bank Limited etc.  But the contention of the complainant is that, he has not availed any such loan from the opposite party.  The opposite party also issued a letter dated:04.11.2016 in Ex.A3 as follows:

“Service Request Number   : 1-5796018951

6Service Request details   : Loan not availed

Employee Name                :G. Kirthi

Branch Name           : Egmore

Employee Code        : 75621

Date                      : 04/11/16.                      

7.     Further the complainant contended that, under wrong pretext the opposite party filed Criminal complaint u/s.200 of Cr.P.C. r/w. 138 N.I. Act for dishonor of cheque issued towards EMI.   Further the complainant contended that, he issued notice through an Advocate as per Ex.A7 stating very clearly that he has not availed any loan and the alleged loan has no connection with the complainant for which, the opposite party has not responded properly and initiated.  Hence the complainant issued Advocate notice for which, there is no proper response.  On the other hand, the opposite party sent Ex.A9, letter stating that “We sincerely regret for the inconvenience caused to you in this regard.  We wish to mention that the CRN 72267939 has  been mapped wrongly due to technical issue and same has been rectified with new CRN number 212543706 for the Kotak customer towards the personal loan (loan agreement number SPLN 59658337).  We request you to please ignore the letter as the same has been withdrawn at our end”.  All the allegations regarding loan and Criminal proceedings are false.  Further, the complainant contended that even after repeated request and demands, the opposite party has not closed all the actions initiated by them which had caused greater mental agony and loss of reputation.  Hence, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and loss of reputation with cost.  But the complainant has not produced substantial evidence for such huge claim.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only)  towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 11^th day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	28.07.2016	Copy of notice issued by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.A2	03.10.2016	Copy of Advocate notice issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A3	04.11.2016	Copy of the service request to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A4	21.12.2016	Copy of the complainant’s grievance to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A5	31.01.2017	Copy of the overdue intimation of amount sent by the opposite parties to the complainant
Ex.A6	16.02.2017	Copy of Court notice issued by the XXVI. Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City to the complainant
Ex.A7	13.03.2017	Copy of the Advocate Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties.
Ex.A8	17.03.2017	Copy of acknowledgement cards
Ex.A9	05.04.2017	Copy of reply notice issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A10	27.06.2017	Copy of the Govt. Proceedings

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT