Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/208/2016

The Axis Bank Ltd.through Chairman and Maning Director - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ms.Om Kanwar Deora w/o Ajay Singh Rathore - Opp.Party(s)

Ratnesh Yadav

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 208 /2016

 

The Axis Bank Ltd. Chairman & Managing Director,Axis Bank Ltd. Corporate office Bombay Dyeing mills compound Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli & ors.

Vs.

Ms.Om Kanwar Deora w/o Ajay Singh Rathore, Plot No. 41,Rathore Nagar, Queens Road,Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur &ors.

 

APPEAL NO: 274 /2016

 

Ms.Om Kanwar Deora w/o Ajay Singh Rathore, Plot No. 41,Rathore Nagar, Queens Road,Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur

Vs.

The Axis Bank Ltd. Chairman & Managing Director,Axis Bank Ltd. Corporate office Bombay Dyeing mills compound Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli & ors.

 

Date of Order 13.7.2016

2

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr. Kailash Soyal - Member

 

Mr. Shyam Vyas counsel for the Bank

Ms.Om Kanwar Deora complainant present in- person

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals have been filed against the order dated 22.1.2016 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 2^nd by which the complaint was allowed.

 

Brief facts are that the complainant was maintaining a saving account with opposite party no.4. On 1.2.2013 due to some error the bank credited her account with Rs. 42661/- and a SMS was received by the complainant. On the basis of this information she withdrew Rs. 20,000/- on 2.2.2013 and again Rs. 20,000/- on 4.2.2013. The bank came to know about the mistake and informed the complainant that amount has been wrongly credited to her account which she has withdrawn and

3

 

she was requested to deposit the amount immediately. The bank repeatedly reminded her on phone and even officials of the bank personally visited her and requested her to deposit the amount but she ignored all the requests from the bank and instead filed a consumer complaint for deficiency in service that she is being threatened by the bank officials and she has been misbehaved and has been receiving calls from the bank officials. She further stated that when she went to bank for depositing locker rent in March 2013, the rent was not deposited and she was asked to come next month. Her husband was not allowed to operate the locker.

 

The opposite party bank did not appear before the learned DCF and did not file any reply. The matter was heard ex-parte. The learned DCF however found that bank has right to recover this amount with interest as it was wrongly credited to her account. Notwithstanding this it allowed the complaint on the ground that bank has committed deficiency in service by misbehaving the complainant and her account was debited without any notice and they also obstructed her to operate the locker.

 

4

 

The bank has challenged this order and filed Appeal No. 208/2016 while the complainant has filed Appeal No. 274/2016 for enhancement of the award.

 

The learned counsel for the bank has submitted that the DCF has passed ex-parte order on the first hearing and closed the reply and proceeded ex-parte against the bank. He has submitted that the DCF should have given opportunity to the bank when the counsel of the bank appeared before it on 22.6.2015.

 

We have considered this argument and we find that so far as the proceedings of the DCF are concerned, we do not find any illegality as when the party does not appear when the case is called for, the DCF has no option to proceed ex-parte and close the reply. However, the bank had remedy by way of revision but that was not availed of.

 

So far as the merits of the case are concerned, we find that the complainant's complaint was misconceived and her conduct is not clean. The complainant admits and acknowledged that she had withdrawn the money from her

5

 

account knowing that it was not her money and she promised to re-pay the amount within two days but despite repeated telephone calls and personal visits of the bank officials, she did not deposit the amount which she had over drawn from her account. We do not think that making repeated calls to her and visit of bank officials to her house for depositing the money was in any way deficiency in service. Though during the arguments the complainant who herself is a lawyer submitted that she was threatened by the bank officials that FIR would be lodged against her but she has not argued a word about why she would not deposit the amount which she had overdrawn and had admitted that this money did not belong to her. She promised to re-pay the amount within two days but it was not paid till March 2014 when she went to deposit the locker rent and when bank officials asked to her to come in next month. As per complaint her husband was allowed to operate the locker when he assured that matter regarding overdrawn amount will be settled. The learned counsel argued that bank could stop operation of locker under principle of general lien. Only rent was not deposited at the first instance. Even during the pendency of the complaint and this appeal the complainant

 

6

 

has never shown any willingness to deposit the amount overdrawn by her.

 

The learned counsel for the bank submitted that as per banking regulations there can be no negative balance in saving account therefore, repeated calls were made to the complainant and when she failed to deposit the amount a sum of Rs. 13,734.94 were adjusted against the amount overdrawn by her and rest of the amount was declared as NPA.

 

In our view the bank was authorized to debit the amount standing to the credit of complainant's account for recovering the amount overdrawn by her. No permission of the complainant was required as she had already overdrawn the amount from her account. Merely repeatedly asking the complainant for depositing the money or proceeding against her through police action cannot held to be a service deficiency. There is no evidence on record as to who misbehaved with her and in what manner. Moreover misbehaviour or illtreatment would not amount to service deficiency and she should have proceeded against officials if any of them had misbehaved her. Consumer complaint is no

7

 

remedy for misbehaviour. She should have filed a criminal complaint. We cannot accept the view taken by the learned DCF that the overdrawn amount debited to her account without consent was a service deficiency. As the amount was wrongly credited to her account and she had overdrawn the amount the bank has every right to rectify the error. No misbehaviour has been proved by any evidence and late acceptance of the locker rent cannot constitute any deficiency in service.

 

Hence, in view of the above discussion we accept the appeal no. 208/2016 filed by the bank and the judgment of the learned DCF is set aside. Consequently appeal no. 274/2016 filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm