Joseph Royan, filed a consumer case on 12 Aug 2016 against The Chief Branch Manager, State Bank of India, in the North Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 63/2013 and the judgment uploaded on 19 Sep 2016.
Complaint presented on: 14.03.2013
Order pronounced on: 12.08.2016
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)
2nd 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 12th 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, 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party, to repay the said instalments on behalf of his son from the account lying with the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party issued ECS authorization to the 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party in favour of the 2nd Opposite Party on the caption of Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance. Then the Complainant gave a letter dated 28.09.2011 to the 1st 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 2nd Opposite Party. The deduction was done even after cancelling all his ECS proves fault on the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party received payment from the 1st Opposite Party with unapproved ECS claim deficiency on the part of the 1st & 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd Opposite Party does not contain any specific amount for which the authorization is made. The authorization simply permits the 2nd Opposite Party to withdraw amount from the account of the Complainant with the 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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, 2nd 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 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party by suitable written communications and get the grievances of the Complainant redressed from the 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party. The alleged unauthorized withdrawal was also made by the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party bank and the same is being maintained by the 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party, to repay the said installments on behalf of his son from the account lying with the 1st Opposite Party and the 1st Opposite Party issued ECS authorization to the 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party in favour of the 2nd Opposite Party on the caption of Kotak Mahendra Life Insurance and again on 02.06.2012 the 1st Opposite Party deducted a sum of Rs.15,000/- in favour of the 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party and the said loan was repaid through ECS mandate from the account of the Complainant maintained by the 1st Opposite Party is not in dispute. To repay the said loan the Complainant gave Ex.A1 is ECS authorization to the 1st 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party who deducted the amount and the 2nd Opposite Party who has benefited by those amount have committed Deficiency in Service.
8. The 1st 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 2nd 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 1st 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 1st Opposite Party not found. Further Ex.A1 ECS mandate is different from that of Ex.B1 mandate. Ex.B1 contains the form of the 2nd Opposite Party. When the Complainant specifically denies his signature and his son, it is for the 1st 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 2nd Opposite Party, the Complainant wrote Ex.A2 letter to the 1st Opposite Party that he had not given any ECS for Rs.15,000/- in favour of the 2nd Opposite Party. Further on 20.12.2011 he wrote Ex.A4 letter to the 1st 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 2nd Opposite Party by way of ECS. If the 1st 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 1st Opposite Party and further the amounts deducted on 02.06.2011 and 02.06.2012 is at the fault of the 1st Opposite Party and therefore we hold that the 1st Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.
10. The 2nd 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 1st Opposite Party and through such account only the vehicle loan was paid to the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party Life Insurance as per the statement of the Ex.A7. Therefore this Forum Suomotu ordered the 2nd Opposite Party to produce the policy copy pertaining to the above mentioned policy numbers. However inspite of sufficient opportunity given to him, the 2nd Opposite Party did not produce the said policies. However the 2nd Opposite Party counsel denied the payment as stated above. The 2nd 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 2nd Opposite Party only the premium amounts were deducted. Therefore, we hold that the 2nd 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 2nd 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 2nd 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 1st & 2nd 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 12th 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 1st 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 1st OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 dated 28.05.2010 ECS Mandate Form executed by the Complainant
in favor of the 2nd Opposite Party vide Document
No.02008166
Ex.B2 dated 03.06.2015 E-mail communication between the 1st Opposite
04.06.2015 Party and M/s Tech process payment Service Ltd.,
LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE 2nd OPPOSITE PARTY:
…….NIL …….
MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.