BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF JULY 2021
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 348/2017
HDFC Bank, Rajarajeswarinagar Branch, Site No.188, 4th Stage, Halagevaderahalli, Rajarajeswarinagar, Bangalore 560 098, Rep. by their Officer and Power of Attorney Holder Mr. Kishore Hegde. (By Sri Francis Xavier) | ……Appellant/s |
V/s
Smt. Sujatha, W/o Late R. Venkataramana Reddy, Aged about 41 years, No.28, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, 1st Phase, BEML 5th Stage, Halagevaderahalli, Rajarajeswarinagar, Bangalore 560 098. (By Sri M.S. Srivatsa) | …Respondent/s |
ORDER
BY SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellant/Opposite Party has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.02.01.2017 passed in CC.No.1365/2016 on the file of Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore which directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.1,14,374/- along with Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.
2. The facts leading to the appeal are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainant that her husband had savings account in the Opposite Party bank and during his lifetime had availed a loan and the said loan was not cleared. When an amount of Rs.1,46,481/- credited to his account, that was adjusted to his loan account and refused the complainant to withdraw the said amount for which the complainant approached the District Commission alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party. The District Commission considering the necessity of the complainant had ordered for payment of the said amount. Hence, Opposite Party prayed to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission.
3. Heard the arguments.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the Order and the documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that the complainant had his salary account with the Opposite Party bank bearing Account No.10391000012640 and such being the case, due to ill health he died on 09.06.2016 left behind the complainant and his children. Thereafter, the complainant received the mail dt.10.08.2016 from the employer of her husband who sent an amount of Rs.1,46,481/- as full and final settlement towards the salary. The same was credited to the account of the deceased/husband of the complainant at Opposite Party bank. But after certain time, the Opposite Party refused to withdraw the said amount on the ground that the husband of the complainant had a loan having in outstanding due. Hence, they have adjusted the same amount towards the loan, but, the amount deducted by the Opposite Party bank is not acceptable. The amount sent by the Employer of the deceased/husband of the complainant is towards salary, the said amount of salary is legally receivable by the LRs/complainant. Under these circumstances, even there is outstanding loan, the Opposite Party bank could have intimate the LRs of the deceased/ husband of the complainant for recovery of the loan. Hence, withholding the withdrawal of amount by the complainant is definitely a deficiency in service. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and merits of the complaint and allowed the complaint by directing the Opposite Party to pay the amount deposited in the account of the deceased/ husband of the complainant. As such no merits found in this appeal and deserved to be dismissed. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
