Haryana

Kurukshetra

172/2017

Dhanwanti - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.Bedi

25 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.172 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 21.08.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:25.01.2019.

Mrs. Dhanwanti daughter of Mam Chand, resident of Bir Pipli (Part) (359), Pipli Ladwa Road, opposite New Food Grain Mandi, behind Nimantran Palace, Saini Sweet House Street, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, ISFC Code: PUNB0294900, Branch Office, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.
2. PNB Metlife India Insurance Co., PNB Circle Branch Office Chatha Complex Kurukshetra Pipli Road, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager/Incharge. 

….Respondents.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present:     Sh. M.S.Bedi, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Lovkesh Machhal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                Op No.2 already exparte.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Dhanwanti against Punjab National Bank and another, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is having a saving account No.2949000100105904 with the Op No.1.  It is alleged that the complainant was issued passbook of the above-said account by the Op No.1 and when the complainant checked the passbook entries, it was revealed that the Op No.1 has illegally deducted the amount of Rs.13,161/- on 07.10.2015 with the remarks in the particulars “To INSO3 DHANWATI 209078843” from the account of complainant without any consent from the complainant.  It is further alleged that on enquiry, the complainant came to know that the amount of Rs.13,161/- was transferred in favour of Op No.2 on 07.10.2015 without disclosing the purpose and without the prior consent of complainant.  It is further alleged that this amount was illegally transferred from the account of complainant and received by the Op No.2 in collusion with the Op No.1.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the amount of Rs.13,161/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. and further to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony or any other relief which this Forum may deems fit.   

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 08.12.2017.  Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that the complainant herself purchased the policy from the Op No.2 and the answering Op No.1 has no concern with the policy of complainant which is issued by the Op No.2; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.           On the other hand, the Op No.1 tendered into evidence documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D4 and Mark-A and Mark-B.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is having saving account with the Op No.1 and she is an illiterate lady.  The complainant checked the passbook entries in which it was revealed that the Op No.1 has illegally deducted the amount of Rs.13,161/- on 07.10.2015 without the consent of complainant.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the Op No.1 but the Op No.1 has not given any reply to this notice.  Counsel of the complainant further contended that she went to the office of Op No.1 and they sent the complainant in the office of Op No.2 and the Op No.2 gave some documents which shows that the amount of Rs.13,161/- has been transferred in favour of Op No.2 on 07.10.2015 without prior consent of the complainant and the policy was given by the Op No.2.  He further contended that the complainant has not applied any time for insurance policy.  Both the Ops No.1 & 2 illegally transferred the amount of Rs.13,161/- from the account of complainant.  So, the complaint may please be accepted.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Op No.1 contended that the complainant herself purchased the policy from the Op No.2.  The complainant has given the consent regarding transfer of amount of Rs.13,161/-, so, he prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  After arguments, this Forum has directed the Op No.1 to produce the account opening form.  The Op No.1 has produced two documents Mark-A and Mark-B.  On perusal of document account opening form i.e. Mark-A, it is clear that the complainant is an illiterate lady because there is impression of thumb mark on the account opening form of Dhanwanti but on the document transfer voucher i.e. Ex.D3, there is no impression of thumb impression rather only in Hindi, it is written “Dhanwati”.  So, it clearly shows that no consent was given by the complainant to transfer the above-said amount in favour of Op No.2.  So, the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross negligence on the part of Ops.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to return the amount of Rs.13,161/- to the complainant and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.            

Announced in open court:

Dt.:25.01.2019.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.