Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/91/2015

Shri.C.M.Veeranna, Advocate - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised Signatory, CDSL/NDSL Department, India Infoline Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Shri. P.Manjunath

21 Nov 2016

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON : 03.11.2015

     DISPOSED ON: 21/11/2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA

CC. NO. 91/2015 DATED:  21st November 2016

PRESENT :-      SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH      PRESIDENT                                      B.A., LL.B.,

                        SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY             MEMBER

                                         B.A., LL.B.,          

COMPLAINANT	C.M. Veeranna, Advocate, D.No.400, 4th Main, J.C.R. Extension, III Main, J.C.R. Circle, Chitradurga-577501, Karnataka.   (Rep by Sri. P.Manjunath, Advocate)
OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorised Signatory, CDSL/NDSL Department, India Infoline Limited, IIFL House, Sun Infotech Park, Road No.16V, Plot No.B-23, MIDC, Thane Industrial Area, Wagle Estate, Thane-400 604, Maharashtra State.   2.  Authorised Agents, Balaji Share Consultancy, Theorofical Society Complex, Chitradurg.   (Rep by Sri.Karigowda, Advocate)

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH. PRESIDENT.

ORDER

The complainant has filed a complaint U/s 12 of C.P. Act 1986 against the OPs for a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.13,779-15 paisa along with 18% interest, Rs.10,000/- towards damages for physical and mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.

 

2.     The brief facts of the case of the complainant are that, he is an Advocate by profession. He opened the Demat Account with OP company's Branch at Chitradurga vide customer No.FP 576067 and now the said branch office is not functioning.  It is further submitted that, he is having an amount of Rs.13,779/- as on 30.09.2014.  After closure of branch office at Chitradurga, complainant requested the OP No.1 to release the amount deposited in the Demat Account, and as per the request letter issued by the OP No.1 complainant send the documents for closure of policy but, OP No.1 has not released the amount, which clearly goes to show that, there is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice to the policy holders.  Complainant approached and demanded the OP No.1 so many times through phone to send the policy amount but, OP No.1 gave an evasive reply and not returned the policy amount.  Therefore,  complainant got issued legal notice calling upon the OP No.1 to send the policy amount within 15 days  but, OPs neither settled the claim nor replied to the notice, which is a deficiency of service and prayed for allow the complaint.      

 3.    On service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. Karibowda, Advocate and filed version stating that, upon receipt of legal notice they have sent a reply to both the complainant and to his Advocate stating that, they have made a payment as per the request made by him.  It is further submitted that, the payout has been made to the complainant on 17.12.2015 through NEFT by way of two payments i.e., Rs.12,101/- and Rs.999/- after deduction of DP Charges but, the same was not successful as the Bank Account had been closed by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, subsequent to appearance before this Forum, they have not taken confirmation from the Bank that, the transaction was not successful because of closure of Bank Account by the complainant.  It is further submitted that, the complainant should contact the OP after receipt of the reply and inform about non receipt of the payment and no opportunity was given to know about closure of Bank Account at the time when the complainant requested for payment of the amount, it is the duty of the complainant to inform the OP about closure of Bank Account.  It is further submitted that, an amount of Rs.12,459/- is still lying in the complainant's account after deduction of DP and other charges applicable and the OP is willing to pay the same to the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.    

        4.     Complainant himself examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence reiterating the contents of complaint and documents are marked at Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2. 

5.     On behalf of OPs one Sri. Shankara Narayan, the Assistant Vice-President Legal of OPs as  DW-1 and no documents have been marked.  

 

6.     Written arguments have been filed and oral arguments heard.

 

7.     Now the Points that arise for our consideration for the decision of the complaint are that:

 

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proves that, OPs have committed deficiency of service in settling his claim and he is entitled for compensation as stated in her complaint?

 

Point No.2:- What order?

 

        8. Our findings on the above points are as follows:

 

        Point No.1:- Partly Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per the final order.

                                        ::REASONS::

 

9. Point No. 1:- It is not in dispute that, complainant opened the Demat Account with OP company's Branch at Chitradurga vide customer No.FP 576067 and he is having an amount of Rs.13,779/- as on 30.09.2014.  After closure of branch office at Chitradurga, complainant requested the OP No.1 to release the amount deposited in the Demat Account by sending the documents for closure of policy but, OP No.1 has not released the amount.  Complainant approached and demanded the OP No.1 over phone to send the policy amount but, OP No.1 gave an evasive reply and not returned the policy amount which is a deficiency of service.  

 10.  In support of her contentions,  complainant has relied on his affidavit evidence in which he has reiterated the contents of complaint.  Complainant has also relied on documents like copy of letter dated 02.06.2015 of India wherein it has been mentioned that, as per telephonic conversation, we understand that you will be sending us the account closure letter, as you wish to avail the full payout, please note that after account closure, we shall release the same marked as Ex.A-1 and copy of legal notice dated 27.08.2015  with postal receipt marked as Ex.A-2.

11.   On the other hand, it is argued by the Advocate for OPs that, upon receipt of legal notice they have sent a reply to both the complainant and to his Advocate stating that, they have made a payment as per the request made by the complainant on 17.12.2015 through NEFT by way of two payments i.e., Rs.12,101/- and Rs.999/- after deduction of DP Charges but, the same was not successful as the Bank Account had been closed by the complainant.  Complainant should contact the OP after receipt of the reply and inform about non receipt of the payment and no opportunity was given to know about closure of Bank Account.  It is the duty of the complainant to inform the OP about closure of Bank Account and an amount of Rs.12,459/- is still lying in the complainant's account after deduction of DP and other charges applicable and the OP is willing to pay the same to the complainant.

12.   We have carefully gone through the pleadings, version of OPs, evidence and written arguments as well as oral arguments of both sides and the documents. According to the complainant, he opened the Demat Account with OP No.1 branch at Chitradurga vide customer No.FP 576067 and the complainant is having an amount of Rs.13,779-15 paisa in the said account.  OP No.1 closed its branch office at Chitradurga.  Complainant requested the OPs to release the amount paid by him but, the OPs have not done the same.  Again complainant send a legal notice to OP requesting to release the amount but, OPs send a reply stating that, you have closed your Bank Account and we have sent the amount to your Bank Account by way two payments i.e., Rs.12,101/- and Rs.999/- respectively.  Complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,779-15 paisa but, OP argued that, it has sent a sum of Rs.12,459/- after deducting DP and other charges, is not correct because OP never sent any money to the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that, the OP is having complainant address and if the complainant closed his account, OP could send the amount directly through cheque to the complainant.  It is clear that, the OP never send any money to the complainant.  Therefore, the complainant could not suffer because he has deposited his hard earned money with the Demat Account.    Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly Affirmative to the complainant.

13.   Point No.2:- For the foregoing reasons, we pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,779-15 paise and Rs.5,000/- towards damages in all a sum of Rs.18,779-15 along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a to the complainant from the date of filing of the complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby  directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 21/11/2016 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures.)

 

 

 

MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT

 

-:ANNEXURES:-

Complainant by filing affidavit evidence taken as PW-1

Witness examined on behalf of Complainant:

                                                          -Nil-

On behalf of OP No.1 one Sri. S. Shankara Narayana examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence. 

Witness examined on behalf of OPs:

                                                          -Nil-

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Letter dated 02.06.2015 by India Infoline Ltd.
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 27.08.2015 with Postal receipt

 

Documents marked on behalf of Opponent:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT

Rhr.