DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD Dated this the 31st day of December 2008.
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair (Member) Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K. (Member) C.C.No.69/2007
P.B. Pramodhkumar S/o. Late Balasubramanian Parackal House Kuppiyode, Elappully Palakkad. - Complainant (Advocate K.P. Noupal) V/s
1. ICICI Bank Rep. By its Branch Manager West Fort Road, Fort Maidan Palakkad
2. K. Pradeep Pradeep Nivas 3/393, Kunnumpurathu Kalpathy Palakkad - Opposite parties. (Advocate Shyja.D) O R D E R By Smt. H. Seena, President The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. Second Opposite party, representative of ICICI Bank approached the complainant for opening a current account. He assured that the account will be opened in 3 days and its a zero balance account. Complainant submitted the application along with necessary documents as stated by 2nd Opposite party viz., cheque for Rs.1,000/- copy of election ID card, renewal premium receipt of LIC, stamp of the firm and passbook copy of his SB account opened for this purpose etc. The said application was submitted on 15/07/2006. But the account was not opened even after 3 days. When the complainant contacted the Opposite parties over phone, they behaved in an arrogant way. So far no account has been opened and bank has not returned his cheque and seal of the firm. Complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the deficiency of service of the Opposite parties. - 2 - Opposite party No.1 entered appearance and filed version . Opposite party No.2 was set exparte. The contentions of Opposite party No.1 is as follows. It is clear from the complaint itself that the complainant have never approached Opposite party No.1 for filing an application to open a current account. Instead, he has approached a third person. The specific contention of Opposite party No.1 is that Opposite party 2 is in no way connected with Opposite party No.1. Further bank is not providing zero balance account to customers of general category. It is clear from the records of the Bank that Bank has not received any application or document from the complainant. Bank accepts renewal premium receipt and pass book copy as address proofs and there is no need of two proofs at a time. The bank can accept pass book copy only if it is having atleast one month transaction. The documents mentioned by the complainant is not sufficient for opening current account. Entity proof of the firm is compulsory as per the Banks guidelines. Since Opposite party No.1 has not received any application for opening a current account, they are not responsible for any loss sustained by the complainant due to non opening of the account. Opposite party No.1 is not responsible for the loss sustained by the petitioner by the act of the 2nd opposite party. The Bank has not received any notice as stated in the complaint. The reply made by the second opposite party shows that the 2nd opposite party has no connection with the 1st opposite party. The documents produced by the complainant contain the seal of the bank, but the signature and initials are made by the 2nd opposite party. Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party No.1 and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The evidence adduced consists of the proof affidavit and Ext A1 to A7 marked on the side of the complainant and affidavit and Exhibit B1 marked on the side of Opposite party No.1 The issues for consideration are. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties? If so, what is the relief and cost?
Points 1 & 2 We have carefully gone through all the relevant documents on record. The case of the - 3 - complainant is that the Ist Opposite party has not opened current account in the name of the complainant even after submitting the application form along with the required documents to the 2nd Opposite party who is the representative of Opposite party No.1. The contention of Opposite party No.1 Bank is that the bank has no connection with 2nd Opposite party. It can be seen from Ext A1 to Ext A5 documents, that it is signed by the 2nd Opposite party for 1st Opposite party and designation and employee Number is also noted. Seal of Opposite party No.1, ICICI Bank is also affixed in all those documents. First Opposite party has not adduced any evidence to substantiate their contention that 2nd Opposite party is not their employee. In Ext A5, application forms submitted by the complainant, it can be even be seen that the application is verified and signed by Solution Manager named Saji Mohan for Opposite party No.1, ICICI Bank. Opposite party has no contention that the said signature is not that of his employee. In view of the above discussions it can be seen that the complainant has made out a strong case in his favour where as Opposite party No.1 has failed to substantiate their contentions. Opposite party No.1 being in the capacity of the principal is liable for the act of his agent.
In the result complaint allowed. First Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation of the complainant and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry an interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of December, 2008.
President (SD) Member (SD) Member (SD)
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext A1 – Copy of the ID Card Ext. A2 – Renewal premium receipt Ext A3 – Pass Book of complainant of Canara Bank, Palakkad
- 4 -
Ext. A4 - Re interview sheet Ext A5 – Application for roaming current account Ext A6 series – Notice issued by complainant to Opposite parties with postal receipt. Ext A7 – Reply notice send by 2nd respondent.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite party Ext. B1 – Guide lines
Costs Allowed Forwarded/By Order
Senior Superintendent
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
