Complaint filed on: 28-05-2016                                                      Disposed on: 11-01-2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM,

OLD DC OFFICE COMPOUND, TUMAKURU-572 101

CC.No.75/2016

DATED THIS THE 11^th           DAY OF JANUARY 2017

PRESENT

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. BAL, LLM, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SHIVAMAHADEVAIAH, B.A, LLB, MEMBER

SMT.GIRIJA, B.A., LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -                                                     

Imran Pasha.A,

S/o. Ameer Jan,

26 years, R/o. Door No.888,

12^th Cross,

Maralur Dinne, Tumakuru Town,

Pin-572 105

(By Advocate Sri.G.Sreepathi)       

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd, CSI Layout, Tumakuru -1

2. The Administrative Manager,

ICICI Bank Ltd, C-wing,

11^th Floor, Mittal Towers,

MG Road, Bengaluru

(OP No.1 and 2 by Advocate Sri.Anjana Murthy)

ORDER

SMT.PRATHIBHA. R.K. PRESIDENT

This complaint has filed by this complainant against the OP No.1 and 2, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant prays to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to pay bank amount of Rs.93,000=00 which is in their custody along with 12% interest from the date of deposit. The complainant prays Rs.20,000=00 towards compensation, Rs.20,000=00 towards damages and Rs.10,000=00 towards cost, in total Rs.50,000=00.

2. The brief facts of the complaint is as under.

          The complainant who is an Engineering Graduate (Mechanical) is unemployee and his father is a merchant having small onion shop at Tumakuru. The complainant submitted that, he came to know through online that, he will get job and accordingly the complainant had uploaded his Bio-data to M/s. Gyalaxy Job Consultancy situated near PSG ATM, near Kanthi Factory Road, Patna District. The job consultancy contacted the complainant and informed that his resume will be selected and complainant will get employment at Dubai and instructed the complainant to deposit the amount to their company account. As per their direction, the complainant has deposited on amount to Sahil Verma’s account which is at ICICI bank account no.194301501239 Rs.8,000=00 on 25-6-2015 and Rs.45,000=00 on 25-7-2015 and on the same day, the complainant has transferred Rs.40,000=00 through RTGS to OP’s account, totally the complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.93,000=00.

          The complainant further submitted, after depositing the amount, the complainant tried to contact Mr.Sahil Verma of Galaxy Job Consultancy over phone and mobile, but the same were not working at that time. Hence the complainant went to Patna and enquired at the address given by them. The complainant came to know that, there is no such company having its office and no name by Sahil Verma. Hence, the complainant had lodged a complaint with Tilak Park Police, Tumakuru on 1-9-2015 and the same was registered vide GSC No. PO1084150600535. Thereafter the complainant came to know that this company is a fake company and again on 12-10-2015 the complainant lodged a complaint with Tilak Park Police, Tumakuru and the police have registered the case vide No.168/2015 under section 420 of IPC. The Tilak Park Police have investigated the matter and visited the spot on 15-1-2016. As per enquiry made by them, there was no such company and person by name Sahil Verma and accordingly they have submitted the report before the honourable court. The police authorities have also submitted investigation report made at ICICI Bank on 14-10-2015 and the police have submitted C-report before the Hon’ble court and accordingly the case was closed.

          The complainant further submitted that, as per the request made to 1^st OP, they have blocked the account of M/s. Galaxy Job Consultancy, Mr.Sahil Verm’s account which the complainant had deposited Rs.93,000=00. The complainant further submitted that, after filing the C-report by the police authority to the Hon’ble Court, the complainant requested the 1^st OP to release his deposited amount after producing copy of the C-report. The OPs have given reply that, they cannot transfer the amount on the basis of closure report and they require a specific direction from the court directing them to transfer the amount. Hence the complainant has come up with the present complaint.

3. After service of notice, the OP No.1 and 2 have appeared through their counsel and filed common objections.

4. In the version, the OPs pleaded that, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the CP Act and there is no contractual obligations or brevity of the contract between the complainant and the OPs.

The OPs further submitted that, the said account belongs to Sahil Verma whose is a consumer of the OPs and without any specific direction from a competent court, the OPs are not liable to release the amount in favour of the complainant and moreover the concerned police have filed a C-report stating that, the accused is not traceable as such the case is closed and after the concerned police issued a C-report stating that the complainant had approached the OP. The OP has specifically instructed the complainant to avail a specific direction from the competent court for the release of the said amount. The complainant instead of approaching the civil court, the complainant has come up with a false complaint as the OP cannot release the amount pertaining to a third party in favour of complainant without any specific direction making his claim in respect of the said amount. It is further submitted that, such a deficiency of service on the part of the OP does not arise at all. The averments made in the complaint are not within the knowledge of this OP as such the same are denied as false.

The OP further submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer as denied under the CP Act and there is no brevity of contract between the complainant and the OP. Further admittedly, the said amount belongs to Sahil Verma and without any specific direction from a competent court; the OP is not liable to release the amount in favour of the complainant, as the OP cannot release the amount pertaining to a third party in favour of the complainant without any specific direction making his claim in respect of the said amount.

The OP further submitted that, the complainant is not the holder of the above said bank account and the OP without any specific court order is not bound to release the said amount in favour of the complainant and the OP is bound by the rules and regulations of the RBI and the OP is not duty bound to release amount standing in somebody’s account to a third party without any document in writing or specific court order.

The OP further submitted that, the complainant in order to avoid paying stamp duty by filing a civil case has approached this forum with a false and frivolous complaint and it is liable to be dismissed in limine. The question of gross negligence latches in rendering the services to the complainant does not arise at all and negligence, if any was on part of the complainant who transferred the amount without performing any checks at his end. It is very crystal clear from the above said fact that, the OP does not have any intention to cheat the complainant. There is any deficiency of service by the OP and hence the provision of CP Act is not applicable. The complainant has not approached this forum with clear hands. The complainant has made any attempt to give misleading information to forum thus is not entitled for any relief nor has any locustandi to approach this forum. Hence the OP has prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice and equity.

5. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced documents along with the complaint which were marked as Ex-C-1 to C14. We have heard the arguments of both parties and perused the documents produced by both parties and posted the case for orders.   

6. Based on the above materials, the following points will arise for our consideration.

1. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP Nos.1 and 2 as alleged by the complainant?
2. What Order?  

7. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1: In the affirmative

          Point no.2: As per the final order below.

REASONS

          The learned counsel appearing for the OP No.1 and 2 has attacked the case of the complainant on two folds. Firstly, it is contended that the alleged complaint does not fall within the purview of the CP Act as the complainant is not a consumer. Secondly, it is contended that, the alleged amount belongs to one Sri.Sahil Verma’s account and without any specific direction from a competent court. We cannot transfer the amount in favour of the complainant.

          Now coming to the claim of the OP No.1 and 2, the learned counsel appearing for him as vigorously contended that, the transaction referred to in the complaint does not fall within the purview of the CP Act as he is not a consumer. Therefore, he contended that, the complaint is liable to be rejected. Per-contra, the counsel for the complainant submitted in his arguments that, the complainant is availed service from the OP No.1 and 2, hence the complainant is a consumer under the OPs. To substantiate the same, he is relied on Section 2 (1) (d) (ii), which reads as under:

“3. Hires of services- Any person who hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. Thus, any person who hires or avails of any service for consideration is a consumer. The terms “Service” has been defined under S.2 (1) (d) (o). It includes service of any kind rendered for consideration”.

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid section, we find no force in the contention taken by the learned counsel appearing for the OP No.1 and 2. Thus, we hold the transaction in question certainly falls within the meaning of the CP Act and the complainant is a consumer.

The learned counsel appearing for the OP No.1 and 2 has also made submission that; the account belongs to one Mr.Sahil Verma without any proper direction from the competent court, the OPs not liable to release the amount in favour of the complainant. Moreover, the concerned police have filed C-Report stating that, the accused is not traceable as such the case is closed. It is relevant to note that, the OP No.1 and 2 has admitted that, if the complainant is getting direction from a competent court, they will transfer the said amount in favour of the complainant. In this regard, the complainant has produced Ex-C14, it reads as under”

“Please note that, we cannot transfer the amount on the basis of closure report, we require a specific direction from the court directing us to transfer the amount”.

          Moreover, the complainant made a written requisition before the OP No.1 and 2 to block Sri.Sahil Verma’s account; it is seen at Ex-C10. Then the complainant lodged the complaint against the one Sri.Sahil Varma before the police under Section 420 IPC by the complainant. After due investigation, the concerned police have submitted C-report before the Hon’ble 3^rd Addl. CJM and JMFC, Tumakuru stating that, the accused is not traceable it is seen at Ex.C1. So after filing C-report by the police, it is bounden duty of the OP No.1 and 2 to release the amount in favour of the complainant, hence there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Therefore, under the circumstance of the case, we hold that, they are liable to pay the alleged amount to the complainant jointly and severally.

          Now coming to the merits of the case, the OPs have contended that, the account belongs to Sri.Sahil Verma who is a consumer of the OP No.1 and 2, and without any specific direction from the competent court; the OP is not liable to release the amount in favour of the complainant on the basis of C-report filed by the complainant. Per-contra, the complainant has produced documents like C-report filed by the police, it is marked at Ex-C1 and requisition made before the OP No.1 regarding block the account of one Sri.Sahil Verma account, it is seen at Ex-C-10. FIR and charge sheet filed by the police against Sri.Sahil Verma, it is seen at Ex-C4 and C5. 

          Moreover, the letter issued by the OP No.1 and 2 regarding specific direction from the court directing the OP to transfer the amount, it is seen at Ex-C14. Further, they have admitted the said matter in their objection and also affidavit. The OP called upon the complainant to obtain direction from the court to directing the OP to transfer the amount. So at this juncture, we feel that, the alleged amount with the OP, so it is just and proper to direct the OP No.1 and 2 to transfer the alleged amount to the complainant. From the above discussion and circumstance of the case, we proceed to pass the following.

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part with cost of Rs.2,000=00.

The OP No.1 and 2 shall transfer the amount of Rs.93,000=00 to the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of compliant till the date of realization, failing which, the interest will carry from the date of deposit the amount to till the date of realization.

This is order is to be complied by the OP No.1 and 2 within 30 days from the date of this order.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the open forum on this, the 11^th day of January 2017).

LADYMEMBER                       MEMBER                       PRESIDENT