IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 10th day of March, 2023.
Filed on :13.10.2022
Present
- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar BSc.,LL.B (President )
- Smt.P.R.Sholy, B.A.L,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.249/2022
between
Complainant:- Opposite party:-
Sri.P.M.Shaji M/s Union Bank of India
Thaikkattumadom Rep.by Branch Manager
Poonthoppe Ward Alappuzha Branch-3
Alappuzha-688006 A.A.T.T.D Building, Opp.General hospital
(Party in person) Alappuzha-688011
(Adv.C.V.Lumumba)
O R D E R
SMT.P.R SHOLY (MEMBER)
This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.
1. Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-
The complainant is having a savings Bank account numbering 52010120061101 to opposite party bank. He was also taken an overdraft account for a period of 10 years having no.565161000057505. On 1/8/2022 it was noticed that his SB account was freezed and on enquiry it was informed from the bank that the SB account would not be open without remitting the outstanding amount of Rs. 83,000/- in the Over Draft account and also informed that if the said amount remitted at once, the entire interest till date would be exempted. Accordingly on 03-08-22 the complainant had submitted a cheque for Rs. 83,000/- along with an application for closing the Over Draft account and the same was honoured from his Savings Bank account on the same day itself. However the said over draft account was closed only on 14/9/2022 by receiving Rs. 81,543.38 to the over draft account.
2. During the period the complainant had approached the opposite party on several occasions to get opening the SB account, but they evaded by saying one or the other excuses and made assured the complainant that the account will be opened by evening of each days enquiry. Believing the words of opposite party’s official, while he attempted online transaction at Petrol Pump, Hotel etc. he was humiliated there for not opening the SB account. On 30/8/2022 the opposite party positively assured to open the SB account and accordingly the complainant along with his family reached MyG showroom for purchasing a mobile phone to his son, they were shocked for not making payment through ATM Card after untied the packets and accepted the offers. Subsequently when the complainant contacted the opposite party over land phone, though they firstly said they could do nothing from the branch, on further repeated request of the complainant the SB account was opened for some hours. Thereafter the complainant went outside and withdrawn an amount of Rs. 20,000/- even though he needed Rs. 30,000/-. He had taken Rs. 10,000/- each for two times and the 3rd attempt was failed. Hence he availed money from his friends and thus he bought the phone.
3. The opposite party had closed the over draft account and re-opened the SB account only after accepting the registered notice from the complainant on 6/9/2022. Even though the opposite party accepted Rs. 81543.38/- from Rs. 83,000/- on details of capital amount, exemption of interest etc. are not documented to the complainant. For availing the said details, the complainant lodged a complaint before Legal Services Authority and it was posted for hearing on 5/10/2022 and adjourned to 17/10/2022 since no representation from the part of opposite party. The complainant is entitled the balance amount from Rs. 83,000/- considering the deduction of Rs. 81,543.38 from his SB account. Hence the complainant filed this complain seeking compensation for Rs. 4,50,000/- from opposite party for mental agony and humiliation even sufficient money kept in his account.
4. In response to the complaint the opposite party filed version as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on fact. The complainant is having SB account as well as a loan account to the opposite party bank. He accepted a loan amount of Rs. 1,23,000/- from opposite party on 22/12/2007 and had given all the necessary documents including promissory note and debit balance acknowledgment upto 31/3/2020. Even though the complainant assured to repay the loan account without any default it was became defaulted and the opposite party initiated proceedings to recover the arrears from the complainant.
5. The loan amount in the Over Draft account became defaulted and there was an arrear of Rs 1,09,318/- till 1/7/2021 in the said account and hence the said account was declared NPA. Subsequently the opposite party freezed the transaction in SB account of the complainant with legally acceptable authority. Thereafter the complainant approached the opposite party for allowing one time settlement leaving interest of the loan amount and hence the opposite party granted the same for an amount of Rs. 83,000/- to the outstanding arrear amount of Rs. 1,02,490.38/-. As said by the opposite party for submitting the OTS recommendation to the Regional Office of the Opposite party, the complainant issued a cheque for an amount of Rs. 83,000/- on 3/8/2022 and further the complainant submitted the application for the same on 25/8/2022 to the opposite party bank and from there it was referred to Regional office where finally decided the OTS of the complainant and hence it was informed the complainant on 14/9/2022 that the closing of over draft account of the complainant.
6. After issuing the cheque for Rs. 83,000/- to the opposite party on 3/8/2022 the opposite party had only taken the time for ordinary procedure for settle the matter which would not amounts to any delay and moreover during the period from 3/8/2022 to 14/9/2022 no amount obtained as interest or other charges. Besides, the complainant withdrawn amounts in 22 times through ATM UPI facility.
7. On 31/8/2022 the complaint had withdrawn Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. 10,000/- each for two times) is the maximum eligible amount withdrawn from other ATM per day. On this count also the opposite party is not liable for compensation. After remitting the amount of Rs. 83,000/- through cheque an amount of Rs. 1000/- and Rs. 514/- received in the SB account on 8/8/2022 and 1/9/2022 respectively. Even though the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 83,000/- to close the over draft account, the opposite party adjusted the said amount of Rs. 1514/- to the over draft account and received the balance amount from the cheque for closing over draft account. The balance amount as per the cheque returned to the SB account of the complainant. The opposite parties acts only as per the procedure of law and there is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party hence the complaint may be dismissed.
8. On the above pleadings the point raised for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?
9. Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A9 (Ext.A5 S.O) on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 on the side of the opposite party. The complainant filed notes of argument and heard the counsel for the opposite party.
10. Point No. 1 and 2:-
PW1 is the complainant in this case. He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A9 in which marking of Ext.A5 objected by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant.
11. RW1 is the opposite party. He filed an affidavit in tune with version and got marked Ext.B1.
12. PW1, the complainant is a customer of opposite party and is having 2 accounts, SB account no. 520101210061101 and over draft account no. 565161000057505 with opposite party. The case advanced by the PW1 is that on an allegation that there was default in payment of over draft account and in consequence on 1/8/2022 the opposite party freezed the SB account of the PW1. On contacting the opposite party it was informed that they could not unfreeze the said SB account without closing the outstanding amount of Rs. 83,000/- in the over draft account. They further informed that if the amount would be remitted at once they can exempted the interest till date. Accordingly the PW1 remitted an amount of Rs. 83,000/- through his SB account by issuing a cheque on 3/8/2022 and the same was credited to the over draft account of the PW1 on the same day itself which is evidenced in Ext.A1 and B1.
13. The further allegation of the PW1 is that though he had remitted the above said amount of Rs. 83,000/- to the over draft account as demanded by the opposite party, it was not closed the over draft account of the PW1 for a further period and during that period his SB account remained frozen, hence he had faced more difficulties for payment in different transactions. Per contra the opposite party contended that the amount of arrears in over draft account of PW1 on 1/7/2021 was Rs. 1,09,318 and it is also admitted PW1 during cross examination. Thereafter the complainant requested to settle the matter in OTS procedure and accordingly the opposite party agreed to settle the matter for an amount of Rs. 83,000/-. Though the complainant remitted the amount on 3/8/2022. He made requested only on 25/8/2022 to the opposite party for getting sanction from higher authority and the same is also admitted by PW1. Admittedly the SB account was unfrozen on 14/9/2022 by the Regional office of opposite party and it was intimated to the complainant through Ext.A9. PW1 also admitted during cross examination by the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party that during the period from the SB account became frozen till 14/9/2022. PW1 made transactions through ATM card for 22 occasions and he also admitted that from 3/8/2022, when the complainant remitted Rs. 83,000/- as OTS payment to 14/9/2022, when closing the defaulted Over Draft loan account, the opposite party had not demanded any charges or no amount obtained as interest for the said period from the complainant. In this connection it is to be noted that though PW1 deposed that he is unaware regarding the withdrawal limit from ATM of other bank is unbelievable since he himself pleaded in the complaint that he had been making transaction using ATM card, hence the contention is untenable. More over nothing brought out in evidence or discredit the deposition of RW1 regarding the procedure with regard to more than one account of a person having unique ID as contended by the RW1. In the said facts and circumstances stated above we found no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party, hence complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as alleged in the complaint.
14. Point No. 3:-
In the result complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 10thday of March, 2023.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Sri.P.M.Shaji (complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of statement of account
Ext.A2 - Copy of messages
Ext.A3 - Letter dtd.06.09.2022
Ext.A4 - Postal receipt
Ext.A5 - Call details from BSNL
Ext.A6 - Tax invoice
Ext.A7 - Copy of complaint before Alappuzha Dist.Legal Services Authority
Ext.A8 - Award dtd.17.10.2022
Ext.A9 - Letter dtd.16.09.2022
Evidence of the opposite parties:
RW1 - Sri.Anu Krishnan A.R (witness)
Ext.B1 - Copy of statement of account
///True Copy ///
To
Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Sa/-
Comp.by:
