Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

63/2013

Joseph Royan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.NA. Malai Saravanan

12 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  14.03.2013

                                                               Order pronounced on:  12.08.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

FRIDAY THE 12^th   DAY OF AUGUST 2016

 

C.C.NO.63/2013

 

 

 

Mr.Joseph Rayan,

S/o.Late. Arpudhasamy,

No.Y Block, 153 (IA),

Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

                                                                                          ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1. The Chief Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Anna Nagar West Branch,

Y211, 2^nd Avenue, Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

 

2. The Manager Kodak Mahendra Life Insurance,

Egmore Branch, Monteith Road,

Chennai – 600 008.

 

	.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 18.03.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. NA.Malai Saravanan

                                                                 K.Thirumavalavan

         

Counsel for 1st opposite party                : M/s.N.Chandra Raj

 

Counsel for 2^nd Opposite Party                     : M/s. A.S.Kailasam & Associates

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IS IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant having a Sate Bank Account in Account No.10408570917 in the 1st Opposite Party bank and the same is being maintained by the 1^st Opposite Party for the past several years. The Complainant’s son Mr.Vijay Amirtha Rayan, availed a car loan is Account No.6007530 dated 21.05.2010 with the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/-. The said loan repayable in 12 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.10,712/- per month. The Complainant gave ECS mandate authorization in favour of 2^nd Opposite Party, to repay the said instalments on behalf of his son from the account lying with the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party issued ECS authorization to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The above said entire loan amount was repaid by the Complainant on May 2011 and all the documents settled with ‘No Due Certificate’ on 21.05.2011. When the Complainant gone through the Bank Statement, he found that on 02.06.2011 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was debited by the 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party on the  caption of Kotak Mahindra  Life Insurance. Then the Complainant gave a letter dated 28.09.2011 to the 1^st Opposite Party to re-remit that amount. Again he has another letter on 20.12.2011 cancelling all ECS deducting from his account. Again another sum of Rs.15,000/- was debited 02.06.2012 in favour of 2^nd Opposite Party. The deduction was done even after cancelling all his ECS proves fault on the 1^st Opposite Party. The 2^nd Opposite Party received payment from the 1^st Opposite Party with unapproved ECS claim deficiency on the part of the 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties. Due to loss of Rs.30,000/- from his account, the Complainant suffered with mental agony. Therefore the Complainant filed this Complaint, to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- with interest and also for compensation with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          It is incorrect to state that the ECS authorization as aforementioned is for a specific amount of Rs.10,712/-. The ECS authorization given by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party does not contain any specific amount for which the authorization is made. The authorization simply permits the 2^nd Opposite Party to withdraw amount from the account of the Complainant with the 1^st Opposite Party in satisfaction of certain transaction between those two parties as per their understanding. The issuance of no due certificate and return of RC book by the 2^nd Opposite Party to the Complainant is a commitment between the parties therein and this Opposite Party is not connected with the same. The first Opposite Party did not authorize any unapproved or unauthorized transaction as alleged by the Complainant. This Opposite Party states that it is not known if the Complainant issued any letter for continuation of ECS with the 2^nd Opposite Party. In such or similar circumstances, this Opposite Party cannot be held liable for any of the transactions that have allegedly taken place in the ECS transaction. It is for the 2^nd Opposite Party to substantiate as to the background and reason behind repeatedly withdrawing a particular amount namely Rs.15,000/- from the account of the Complainant at a particular date namely, 2^nd June of 2011 and 2012 or subsequently. The second Opposite Party is the beneficiary of the alleged transaction which according to the Complainant is unauthorized by him. This Opposite Party has neither benefitted from the alleged transaction nor had any substantive role to play in the same. ECS transactions are electronic and computer generated. There is minimal human intervention in such transactions are electronic and computer generated. There is minimal human intervention in such transactions and therefore there is hardly any room for negligence or Deficiency in Service, much less any fraud being committed by or on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party. It is also to be seen that the money thus deducted should have been credited to the alleged policy account of the Complainant only by the 2^nd Opposite Party and as such the Complainant is not a looser as long as the policy continues in his name.  The allegations against this Opposite Party is not maintainable as the Complainant was rightly and promptly directed to take up the matter with the 2^nd Opposite Party by suitable written communications and get the grievances of the Complainant redressed from the 2^nd Opposite Party. Instead of the said course of action, the Complainant has impleaded this Opposite Party also without any proper legal or factual basis. The beneficiary of the disputed amount namely Rs.30,000/- is the 2^nd Opposite Party. The alleged unauthorized withdrawal was also made by the 2^nd Opposite Party through their bankers. This Opposite Party is not directly connected with the same except for providing the automated ECS facility to the Complainant. The claim of the Complainant is to be answered by the 2^nd Opposite Party alone and this Opposite Party has been unnecessarily dragged into this litigation. The Opposite Party prays this Hon’ble Forum to dismiss the aforementioned Complaint as against the first Opposite Party with costs.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant has availed a car loan from the Opposite Party no.1 and has alleged that for payment of the monthly installments he has signed an ECS authorization in favour of answering Opposite Party which allegation is false and baseless. It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party is a Life Insurance Company and deals in issuance of Life Insurance and group policy to its customers. The answering Opposite Party has nothing to do with the loan availed by the Complainant from the answering Opposite Party. It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party has neither received any installment as alleged nor has issued any policy to the Complainant or his son. Therefore, there was no deficiency on the part of the replying Opposite Party and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that the answering Opposite Party deal in insurance policies and has never issued any policy to the Complainant nor has received any amount as alleged by the Complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the answering Opposite Party has never received any money from the son of the Complainant nor has issued any policy to the Complainant’s son. Therefore, the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

5. POINT NO: 1

          The  case of the Complainant is that he is  having a Sate Bank Account in Account No.10408570917 in the  1^st Opposite Party bank and the same is being maintained by the 1^st Opposite Party for the past several years and the Complainant’s son Mr.Vijay Amirtha Rayan, availed a car loan in Account No.6007530 dated 21.05.2010 with the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- and  the said loan repayable in 12 monthly installments at the rate of Rs.10,712/- per month and the Complainant  gave ECS mandate authorization in favour of 2^nd Opposite Party, to repay the said  installments on behalf of his son from the account lying with the 1^st Opposite Party and the 1^st Opposite Party issued ECS authorization to the 2^nd Opposite Party and  the above said entire loan amount was repaid by the Complainant  by  May 2011 and all the documents settled with ‘No Due Certificate’ on 21.05.2011 and when the Complainant gone through the Bank Statement, he found that on 02.06.2011 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was detailed by the 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party on the  caption of Kotak Mahendra  Life Insurance and again  on 02.06.2012 the 1^st Opposite Party deducted a sum of Rs.15,000/- in   favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party on the  caption of Kotak Mahendra  Life Insurance without any ECS mandate from the Complainant and therefore the Opposite Parties have committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. The Complainant’s son availed loan from the 2^nd Opposite Party and the said loan was repaid through ECS mandate from the account of the Complainant maintained by the 1^st Opposite Party is not in dispute. To repay the said loan the Complainant gave Ex.A1 is ECS authorization to the 1^st Opposite Party.  The Chief Manager for the 1st Opposite Party has also signed in Ex.A1 ECS. In pursuance of Ex.A1 ECS the entire loan borrowed by the Complainant son was repaid by virtue of Ex.A1 ECS mandate.

          7. The Complainant alleged that on 02.06.2011 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was deducted in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party through ECS from his account and also on 02.06.2012 and another sum of Rs.15,000/- was deducted in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party from his account towards Life Insurance Premium and  such deductions was not authorized by the Complainant and therefore in respect of the same the 1^st  Opposite Party who deducted the amount and the 2^nd Opposite Party who has benefited by those amount have committed Deficiency in Service.

          8. The 1^st Opposite Party contended that by virtue Ex.B1 ECS mandate the amount was deducted and therefore he has not committed any Deficiency in Service and further the 2^nd Opposite Party would contend that he had not received or beneficiary of those amount and therefore he had not also committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          9. The Complainant specifically contended he had not given Ex.B1 mandate to any one and he is aware of the Ex.B1document only in this Forum and he disputes his alleged signature and his son in Ex.B1. The Complainant admits that Ex.A1 ECS mandate given by him by the 1^st Opposite Party for deduction of loan availed by his son and the same contains the signature of the Chief Manager with seal.  On the contrary in Ex.B1, the seal and the signature of the 1^st Opposite Party not found.  Further Ex.A1 ECS mandate is different from that of Ex.B1 mandate. Ex.B1 contains the form of the 2^nd Opposite Party.  When the Complainant specifically denies his signature and his son, it is for the 1^st Opposite Party to prove that the signatures found in Ex.B1 is that of the Complainant and his son. Further immediately after the first deduction of Rs.15,000/- on 02.06.2011  in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party,  the Complainant wrote Ex.A2 letter to the 1^st Opposite Party  that he had not given any ECS for Rs.15,000/-  in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party. Further on 20.12.2011 he wrote Ex.A4 letter to the 1^st Opposite Party to cancel all ECS deduction from his account as on date. Even after, such letter nearly after 5 months again on 02.06.2012 another sum of Rs.15,000/- deducted from the account of the Complainant in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party by way of ECS. If the 1^st Opposite Party taken action on the letters of Ex.A2 & Ex.A4, the deduction on 02.06.2012 would not occurred. Further during the pendency of the case an another sum of Rs.15,000/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant and the same was reversed to the Complainant account. Therefore we hold that Ex.B1 is not the ECS mandate issued by the Complainant to the 1^st Opposite Party and further  the amounts deducted on 02.06.2011 and 02.06.2012 is at the fault of the 1^st Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          10. The 2^nd Opposite Party would contend that he had not issued any policies to the Complainant or his son and he has not received any premium or money from the Complainant and the ECS mandate issued by the Complainant came to end on 10.05.2011 and thereafter he was not a beneficiary of receiving any fund from the Complainant and therefore this Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.

          11. The Complainant filed Ex.A7 Bank Statement Office Account maintained by the 1^st Opposite Party and through such account only the vehicle loan was paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party through ECS mandate. As per  Ex.A7 on 02.06.2011 a sum of Rs.15,000/- was debited from his account in favour of ECS Debit TP Kotak Life Ins 0000443663329 and on 03.06.2012 another sum of Rs.15,000/-  was debited from his account in favour of ECS Debit TP Kotak Life Ins 0000522078744. The 2^nd Opposite Party admittedly deals with the Life Insurance. The above said two amounts of Rs.15,000/- each was debited only in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party Life Insurance as per the statement of the Ex.A7. Therefore this Forum Suomotu ordered the 2^nd Opposite Party to produce the policy copy pertaining to the above mentioned policy numbers. However inspite of sufficient opportunity given to him, the 2^nd Opposite Party did not produce the said policies. However the 2^nd Opposite Party counsel denied the payment as stated above. The 2^nd Opposite Party did not produce the policies or had not stated that the policy numbers did not pertaining to them. Ex.A7 statement of account of the Complainant clearly establishes that in favour of the 2^nd Opposite Party only the premium amounts were deducted. Therefore, we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party is only the beneficiary  and his contention that he had not received any payment in respect of insurance is rejected and consequently we hold that the 2^nd Opposite Party which is the beneficiary also committed Deficiency in Service.

12. POINT NO: 2

          A sum of Rs.30,000/- was deducted from the account of the Complainant is without any authority and therefore the Complainant is entitled for refund of the same with 12% interest from 02.06.2012 the date on which the 2^nd amount was debited. The wrong deduction of amount caused mental agony to the Complainant is acceptable and for the same it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The  1^st & 2^nd Opposite Parties jointly or severally are ordered to refund a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with 12% interest from 02.06.2012  to till the date of this order to   the Complainant  and also to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses.

 

 

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 12^th  day of August 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 19.05.2010                   ECS authorization cum bankers certification

Ex.A2 dated 28.09.2011                   Letter of Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 20.12.2011                   Letter of 1^st Opposite Party  

Ex.A4 dated 20.12.2011                   Letter of Complainant  

Ex.A5 dated 18.09.2012                   Letter of Complainant

Ex.A6 dated 16.10.2012                   Letter of Complainant

Ex.A7 dated NIL                     Bank Statement

Ex.A8 dated 02.11.2012                   Lawyer Notice

Ex.A9 dated NIL                     AD card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 28.05.2010                   ECS Mandate Form executed by the Complainant

                                                    in favor of the 2^nd Opposite Party vide Document

                                                 No.02008166

 

 

 

Ex.B2 dated 03.06.2015                   E-mail communication between the 1^st Opposite

                   04.06.2015              Party and M/s Tech process payment Service Ltd.,

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  2^nd  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                                      …….NIL …….                                

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT