DATE OF FILING : 24-07-2009.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 28-05-2010.
Rinku Bhagat,
203 G/1, Rajendra Avenue, P.O. Uttarpara,
District – Hooghly,
PIN – 712248 ( W.B. ), --------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
1. The Branch Manager ( Howrah Branch ),
ICICI Pruduntial Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
P-4, Dobson Lane, ( 1st floor ),
New Howrah Bridge Approach Road,
Howrah – 711101.
2. The Branch Manager ( Dalhousie Square Branch ),
AXIS Bank Ltd. Mukti Chambers, Ground Floor,
4, Clive Row, Kolkata – 700001. ------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
1. Hon’ble President : Shri J. N. Ray.
2. Hon’ble Member Dr. Dilip Kr. Chakraborty.
3. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya.
C O U N S E L
Representative for the complainant : Complainant herself.
Ld. Advocate.
Representative for the opposite party nos. 1 & 2
: Shri Somnath Maiti,
Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
This is to consider an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 praying for compensation towards deficiency in service.
Fact of the case, in brief, is that the complainant has done a Life Time Super Policy ( Policy no. 03474035 ) on 21-09-2006 with o.p. no. 1 and given two months premium as per company’s norms and also requested for payment of premium month by month i.e., E.M.I. through her savings account lying with the proforma o.p. no. 2 Bank by way of Electronic Clearing System. But, as the same was not activated from the said account the complainant paid lumpsum amount of Rs. 20,004/- on 20-11-2007 by cheque no. 196181 and Rs. 6,668/- by cheque no. 196183 on 28-02-2008. But suddently thereafter on 25-03-2008 the E.C.S. was automatically activated and the premium for the month of March, 2008 was debited without any verbal or written consent from the complainant. Further, in the next month i.e., in April, 2008 the ECS was bounced due to non availability of fund and for that reason o.p. no. 2 has debited their charges i.e., Rs. 225/- on 25-04-2008 being the charges of bouncing according to ECS mandate due to lack of funds. The complainant did not aware about the activation of E.C.S. System and for that reason the complainant did not maintain the balance for ECS in her saving account. After March, 2008 automatically her balance decreased ( as ECS was activated on 25-03-2008 ) but at this point of time neither o.p. no. 1 nor o.p. no. 2 informed her in this matter. The first ECS was started on 25-03-2008 but the complainant informed the matter much later by her quarterly statement.
She has discussed the matter verbally with o.p. no. 1. O.p. no. 1 assured her that this problem would be solved within a month and the debited charges would be returned back to the complainant by cheque or draft. But all in vein. Ultimately the complainant gave her written application to o.p. no. 1 on 29-11-2008 and to o.p. no. 2 on 05-12-2008 along with all necessary documents. But to no effect. Hence the application.
Despite of proper service to o.p. no. 1 they did not appear and did not take any step in proper time. So the case was decided to be run ex parte against o.p. no. 1. But after that, o.p. no. 1 appeared by vacating the ex parte order and contested the case by filing written version.
O.p. no. 1 simply denied all allegations made by the complainant .
The counsel for o.p. no. 1 argued that as the complainant herself duly filed and signed the ECS Form dated 21-09-2006 so the complainant has authorized the o.p. no. 1 to withdraw the premium from the complainant’s account maintained with the o.p. no. 2, AXIS Bank.. The ECS of the complainant got bounced time to time due to insufficient fund. The complainant is duty bound to maintain her account with sufficient amount so that the premium amount could be cleared. Again complainant closed her above ECS System , so the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
But o.p. no. 1 has admitted in their written version that due to some ”Technical reasons” the ECS account of the complainant could not be activated and the same was made known to the complainant by o.p. no. 1. Moreover, counsel for o.p. no. 1 argues that the aforesaid charge of Rs. 225/- was deducted for another reason not for ECS bouncing. So, that is not their fault.
O.p. no. 2, AXIS Bank, has been impleaded in the case as proforma o.p. who virtually admitted the complaint of the petitioner contending interalia that according to the ECS mandate the o.p. no. 1 did not activate or demand the amount on monthly basis upto 25-03-2008. But o.p. no. 1 activated the ECS mandate only on 25-03-2008. It is further submitted by o.p. no. 2 that in the terms of the agreement between the proforma o.p. no. 2 and the complainant, the o.p. no. 2 debited the charges of Rs. 225/- being the bounce charge. It is submitted by o.p. no. 2 that o.p. no. 2 is duty bound under rules and regulations to either honour the ECS mandate, if funds are available or to dishnour the ECS mandate if funds are not available and has no other option except to follow the said rules and regulations under Banking Law and Practice. The complainant has not sought any relief from o.p. no. 2. So the instant case may be dismissed against the proforma o.p. no. 2.
Therefore, in view of the pleading of the parties following points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. no. 1 by not maintaining the ECS Account properly ?
Is the complainant entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
POINTS NO. 1 & 2 :
Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion and for brevity.
It is admitted fact that the complainant has made a Life Time Super Policy ( Policy no. 03474035 ) from o.p. no. 1 on 21-09-2006 along with first two months premium by cheque. It is also admitted that ECS was not run due to some technical problems. But all on a sudden on 25-03-2008 the ECS was activated and the premium was deducted from her savings account with o.p. no 2. It is also admitted that in the next month the ECS was bounced due to non-availability of sufficient fund and for that reason o.p. no. 2 debited the charges as per norms.
The complainant filed her written complaints to the o.p. no. 1. But although the verbal assurance was given the charges was not refunded to her It is also admitted that the ECS was bounced for non availability of sufficient fund as the ECS was started automatically after a prolonged period without informing the complainant by o.p. no. 1. The complainant was used to pay premium by herself by cash or cheque.
Further the complainant has submitted affidavit in support of her complaint.
It may be that due to some technical problems the ECS could not be activated. But o.p. n o. 1 should inform the complainant in proper ;way. Moreover, it is not the fact that the ECS was not activated for one or two months, it was not activated for more or less 18 months after the initiation of the policy. It is fact that when the complainant filled up the ECS mandate, she would maintain her balance. But if the ECS was not activated for near about 1&½ years how the complainant would be aware of that or how the complainant would know when the ECS would be started.
According to the version of o.p. no. 2, AXIS Bank, there is no reason for o.p. no. 1 to deny the fact that due to their whimsical activities the complainant has suffered the loss. As ECS was not activated the complainant had paid her premium by lump sum and the policy in question was running also.
The Forum is of view that the o.p. no. 1 has no right to activate the ECS of the complainant all on a sudden without informing her in proper way.
From the document supplied by o.p. no. 2, it is clear that the charge was debited for insufficient fund for the ECS in question for the month of April, 2008. The said fact certainly proved that the o.p. no. 1 deliberately committed deficiency in service by not activating the ECS properly and not informing the complainant in advance.
Therefore, for the reasons recorded herein the complainant is entitled to get an order in terms of Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Points no. 1 & 2 are accordingly decided.
In result, the application succeeds.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the consumer complaint is allowed on contest against o.p. no. 1 with cost assessed Rs. 500/- and dismissed against o.p. no. 2, AXIS Bank, without cost.
That the complainant shall get refund of Rs. 225/- from o.p. no. 1 as charges debited by the AXIS Bank.
That the complainant shall also get a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- on account of harassment caused by the o.p. no. 1.
That the o.p. no. 1 is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant within 30 days hereof, in default the o.p. no. 1 will pay @ 8% per annum interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of order till recovery.
Supply copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
