Delhi

North West

CC/642/2015

B.R.MALHOTRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jul 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.

 

CC No: 642/2015

 

D.No.______________________                            Dated: __________________

 

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

B.R. MALHOTRA S/o LATE SH. M.S. MALHOTRA,

R/o AN-43-C, SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI-110088.                                                          … COMPLAINANT

 

  

Versus

 

 

STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD,

(THROUGH ITS CHIEF MANAGER),

AL BLOCK, SHALIMAR BAGH,

DELHI-110088.                                                      … OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

CORAM : SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

               SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER

      MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER   

         

                            Date of Institution: 02.07.2015

                                                                         Date of decision: 21.07.2017

 

SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT

ORDER

 

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant has a joint saving bank account in the name of

CC No. 642/2013                                                                        Page 1 of 4       

 

Mrs. Usha Malhotra & Sh. B.R. Malhotra bearing account no. 52010630693 (auto sweep account facilities) with OP and the complainant requested the bank vide his letter dated 31.12.2014 to refer the pass book entries made from 10.12.2014 to 26.12.2014 by bank to the effect that entry of the amount of Rs.16,000/- has not been added/credited towards interest in the ‘MOD Balance’. The complainant further alleged that during the course of personal discussions and follow up, the bank has accepted their mistake and told the complainant that they had already taken up the matter with their Head Office but have not received any clarification from them despite having sent reminders time to time and the complainant was asked to give sometime to bank and after having waited for more than 2 ½ months, a notice was sent to the bank on 15.03.2015 for necessary action in the matter. The ‘MOD Balance’ was shown on 22.12.2014 as Rs.7,59,885.51 and on 26.12.2014 it was shown as Rs.7,53,778.51 whereas there was no transaction made during this period and the bank reduced the ‘MOD Balance’ of their own. The complainant further alleged that so far neither the said credit has been given nor any justification/clarification received from the bank of their own wrong on the subject and there is a clear case of deficiency in service.

CC No. 642/2013                                                                        Page 2 of 4

2.       On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint praying for compensation for harassment, mental agony as well as impose penalty on bank for not responding to the complaint/notice and has also sought litigation cost together with interest.

3.       Notice to OP has been issued for appearance on 17.12.2015. But none for the OP appeared on 17.12.2015 despite service of the notice on 09.11.2015. As such the OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 19.04.2016.

4.       In order to prove his case the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and has also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of letter dated 31.12.2014 sent to the OP, copy of self calculation sheet, copy of bank passbook showing entry from 05.11.2014 to 13.02.2015, copy of notice dated 15.03.2015 sent by the complainant to the OP and copy of statement of account dated 17.12.2016 issued by OP for the period from 01.12.2014 to 31.12.2014.

5.       This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The copy of statement of account dated 17.12.2016 for the period from 01.12.2014 to 31.12.2014 issued by the bank clearly shows

CC No. 642/2013                                                                        Page 3 of 4

          that ‘MOD Balance’ was shown as Rs.10,80,221.00 (credit). Thus it cannot be said that the OP has shown lesser ‘MOD Balance’ in the account of the complainant. Thus the complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent evidence and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.

6.       Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room. 

Announced on this 21^st July, 2017.

 

 

    BARIQ AHMED                        USHA KHANNA                            M.K. GUPTA

      (MEMBER)                               (MEMBER)                               (PRESIDENT)

 

 

 

CC No. 642/2013                                                                        Page 4 of 4