D.O.F:20/02/2017
D.O.O:15/01/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.29/2017
Dated this, the 15th day of January 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Madhusoodhanan, S/o Balakrishnan,
Sarojini Nilayam, Panayal : Complainant
Thachangad, Kasaragod
(Adv: Nisha.K)
And
1. Sureshan,
Branch Manager,
IndusInd Bank Pvt. Ltd,
Kanhangad P.O : Opposite Parties
2. Manager, Indusind Bank,
Consumer Finance Division,
Old No. 115, 116, New No. 34,
G.N Chetty Road, T. Nagar, Chennai
(Adv: Babuchandran.K OP 1&2)
3. Escalation Manager
Mungesh Shirod
Indusind Bank Ltd, Kanhangad
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The Facts of the case is as follows:-
The complainant availed finance facility from Opposite Party for purchase of JCB KL – 60L 1181 in the year 2016. Opposite Party issued the repayment schedule. It shows his wife’s name wrongly written as Hassika insteed of Mallika in the nominee colum. Repayment chart is received by his wife. Immediately wrong entry of name brought to the notice of Opposite Party. But no steps taken to correct. Finally sent a lawyer notice dated 10/11/2016. But despite service of lawyer notice, Opposite Party refused to correct it. So complaint claims compensation for deficiency in service.
2. The Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 filed their written version denying the allegations. Opposite Party set up a case that name of wife as nominee shown was wrongly typed as Hassika instead of Mallika. It was cut and paste error. They tendered apology in writing and it was rectified and complainant accepted the apology, complainant is liable to be dismissed. Later Opposite Party No:3 was impleaded and filed their written version stating that as they were unnecessary party. There is no wrong entry made by Opposite Party No:3 in records and complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party No:3.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit and marked documents as Ext A1 to A8. Ext A1 is the copies of lawyer notice, Ext A2 to A7 are copies of E-mail messages. Ext A8 is re-payment scheduled. The Opposite Party did not adduce evidence.
4. So point for consideration are these:
a) Whether there is any deficiency in service rendered by Opposite Party in the matter of wrong entry of name of nominee of the complainant as Hassika instead of Mallika.
b) Whether there is negligence from the side of Opposite Party? Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All the points taken together for consideration.
5. The complaint relates to showing his wife’s name in the re-payment schedule, Ext A8 as Hassika instead of Mallika. Further allegation is that despite request to correct the mistaken entry, it is not corrected yet even after sending a lawyer notice for which no reply is sent. Complaint filed in the year 2017. Though written version shows that name is corrected followed by apology, there is no evidence to prove that name is changed as required. In any event no document is produced to show the correct entry of name of his wife or correct date of birth. Not even a suggestion in cross examinations that corrected repayment chart is sent to the complainant. Pw1 in cross examination, suggestion is made as there is no personal delivery of re-payment schedule of his wife. The Opposite Party did not suggest that mistake is corrected even after notice or after receipt of notice of this complaint. Pw2, the wife of complainant examined as Pw2 while Pw2 is cross examined Opposite Party has no case that name of nominee is corrected at any time. So purposely and deliberately no steps are taken to change the wrong entries even after four years of filing complaint. No explanations forth coming let alone satisfactory explanation. Thus there is serious deficiency and negligence in the service rendered by Opposite Party in the matter of wrong entry of name of nominee of the complainant and hence complainant is entitled for compensation in this regard.
6. A nominee also called a beneficiary, is a person who gets some rights in the event of the death of account holder due to an accident or such unpredictable incidents. The process of changing the nominee with the digital infrastructure allowed you to change the nominee name in without any lengthy procedure. Mistakes and errors in nomination can create issues after the death of the account holder. Complainant has no grievance that suffered any financial loss on account of wrong entry of name of his wife in the document Ext A8.
7. So considering all facts and circumstances of the case complainant is entitled compensation for causing mental agony by keeping the wrong entry as it is despite assurance of change.
Complaint is entitled for compensation. This Consumer commission is of the view that Rs. 25,000/-reasonable under the circumstances for the case. Though Opposite Party No:3 is impleaded no relief is specifically sought for against Opposite Party No:3 and no specific allegation is raised against Opposite Party No:3. So Opposite Party No:3 is exonerated from any liability in the case. Opposite Party No:1 and 2 alone are fund liable to pay the compensation to the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite Party No:1 and 2 to pay Rs. 25000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) as compensation along with Rs. 5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) as cost to the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Lawyers notice
A2- G –mail copy Dt: 4/11/2016
A3- G- mail copy Dt: 20/11/2016
A4- G-mail copy Dt: 20/11/2016
A5- G-mail copy Dt:20/11/2016
A6- G-mail copy 21/11/2016
A7- G-mail copy 21/11/2016
A8- Loan repayment schedule
Witness Examined
Pw1- Madhusoodhanan
Pw2- Mallika Madhusudhan
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
