KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.238/2017

JUDGEMENT DATED : 13.12.2024

(Against the order in C.C.No.224/2015on the file of DCDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

APPELLANT:

(by Adv. N.R. Chandrasekharan)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

(by Adv. R.S. Mohanan Nair)

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR  :  PRESIDENT

          The appellant is the complainant and the respondent is the opposite party in C.C.No.224/2015 on the files of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (for short ‘the District Commission’).

          2.       The complainant opened an account on 05.03.2015 with the bank of the opposite party.  It was a current account.  Some amount was deposited in the said account.  While so, the complainant requested for the cheque book.   It was not given to the complainant.  The complainant was also required to furnish the details of the employment as the account was a current account.  Since the complainant was not prepared to furnish the details, the complainant was not permitted to withdraw the amount. 

          3.       As per the directions of RBI and as per the KYC compliance, in order to open a current account, the bank is required to collect the details of the employment/occupation.  However, the nature of self employment was not mentioned by the complainant.  Therefore, the opposite party was not in a position to issue cheque book.  The opposite party was also not in a position to permit the complainant to operate the current account without furnishing the said details.  In the said circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          4.       PW1 was examined and Exhibits A1 to A13 were marked for the complainant.  RW 1 and RW2 were examined and Exhibits B1 to B10 were marked for the opposite party.

          5.       After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission directed the opposite party to restore the current account after receiving the details of the complainant’s employment.  The District Commission further directed the opposite party to pay Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation towards the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          6.       Aggrieved by the inadequacy of the compensation ordered by the District Commission, the complainant has filed this appeal.

          7.       Heard both sides. 

          8.       Since the opposite party has not filed any appeal against the order impugned, the order impugned has become final and conclusive to the extent it relates to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  However, we will have to consider as to whether the complainant is entitled to get more compensation than what had been already granted by the District Commission.  It appears that the intention of the complainant, to open the current account, was to start a self employment.  Had there been any restriction in operating the current account, that should have been informed to the complainant at the time of opening the account.  However, that was not done.

          9.       The complainant was permitted to open the account and thereafter, it was contended by the opposite party that the details with regard to the self employment had to be furnished by the complainant for opening the account.  It is evident from the materials on record that the complainant had stated in the current account opening form that the complainant was a self employed person.  At that time, the complainant ought to have been instructed to furnish the details of his employment.  Instead of doing that, the opposite party had, at a later stage, declined to permit the complainant to operate the account, by refusing to issue the cheque leaf, which would, no doubt, amount to deficiency in service as had been rightly found by the District Commission.

          10.     It was because of the said deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party that the complainant had suffered mental agony and inconvenience.  The District Commission had ordered only Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation on this count.  Having gone through the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation ordered by the District Commission can be modified and increased to some extent.  Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the compensation ordered by the District Commission can be modified and enhanced from Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand only) to meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly, we order so.

          In the result, this appeal stands allowed in part, confirming the order passed by the District Commission, except to the extent of modifying and enhancing the compensation ordered by the District Commission from Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to Rs.7,000/-(Rupees Seven Thousand only).  In the circumstance of the case, there is no order as to costs in this judgment.

SL