DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Gurpal Kaur Dulat w/o S. Ranjit Singh, r/o Kothi No. 441, Phase-I, Mohali.

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

[1]     The Chief Manager, CCPC Branch, State Bank of Patiala, Sector 17-C, adjoining Godrej Showroom, Chandigarh.

[2]     State Bank of Patiala, through Branch Manager, Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                   PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:      Sh. Narinder Lucky, Adv. for the Complainant.

Sh. S.P. Garg, Adv. for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OP for short), on the grounds that the CC was having a saving account no. 55024586703 with OP-2 and the same was closed by her after submitting the Cheque book and the ATM card pertaining to the said account with the OP-2.  Thereafter, she opened a new account No. 55140263438 on 03.05.10 and got issued a new Cheque book. On 05.07.10, the CC deposited Rs.6000/- the required amount for application of a plot with GAMADA and at that point of time, it was revealed that there was only Rs.53/- remained balance in her account No.55140263438 (new account). The CC inquired from the concerned official, who disclosed that the amount of Rs.12385/- was transferred to account no. 098751508078 on 12.06.10, in lieu of ECS of the CC. The CC categorically states that she had not issued any mandate of ECS or any Cheque was issued pertaining to the new account no. 55140263438 to any person.

                The CC further reveals that while she maintained her previous account No. 55024586703 with the OPs, had given one ECS of Rs.7411/- of her old account and the same account was closed in the month of April, 2009.  

                The CC is aggrieved of the wrongful withdrawal of an amount of Rs.12,385/- from her new account no. 55140263438 and has also put hold of Rs.2437/-.  The CC on inquiring about the said withdrawal was told that the said amount of Rs.12,385/- were actually transferred into the account of ICICI Bank for whom an ECS mandate was given by her for her older account no. 55024586703, maintained with the OP-2. The CC has alleged that as there was no mandate issued by her for the withdrawal of the money in her present account, the bank was wrongful in doing the same and has caused her loss of Rs.12,385/-. The CC pursued the matter with OP-1 to redress her grievance, who initially did write to OP-2 through her letter dated 05.07.2010, but thereafter, the OPs failed to respond to her queries. The CC also served a legal notice to the OPs. On failure to receive a positive reply from the OPs, has filed the present complaint seeking relief of:-

i)         Refund of the deducted amount along with interest @12% p.a.  

ii)        Consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1.00 lac on account of mental agony and discomfort at the hands of OPs, including litigation expenses.    

2.              On notice, OPs have filed their joint version/ written statement and have contested the claim of the CC.

                The OPs have contested the claim of the CC stating that the CC having opened a fresh account with the OPs and an amount of Rs.18,385/- from her older account was credited in her new account. It is also admitted that the CC deposited an amount of Rs.6000/- on 5.7.2010, but the purpose of the said deposit is denied for want of knowledge.

                The OPs have revealed that the CC while entering into a tripartite agreement with ICICI Bank and Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. As the CC had given a mandate to Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. for deducting Rs.7411/- from her previous savings account No. 55024586703, on 22.11.2009, by way of ECS. It is further mentioned that the CC closed her said account on 03.05.2010 and at the same time, opened a fresh account bearing No. 55140263438, the same day and  a balance amount of Rs.18385/- was transferred from her old account to the new one.  The CC did inform the Agency or the Bank to not to deduct the installments from her new account.

                OPs have categorically stated that as the CC never cancelled the ECS Mandate given by her previously as a result of which the installments of the month of May, 2010 and June, 2010, were inadvertently debited to the account of some another customer of the said branch. When the said discrepancy was noticed, the bank debited the amount from the account of the CC, applying the right to set off and in the above right and capacity. It is further stated that as the amount was to be deposited by the Complainant herself, so the deduction on account of clearance of ECS cannot be faulted in any way. The OPs have also contested the fact that they have told the CC about their right to set off when the CC made a representation with them while moving an application [Annex.C-1).   OPs have further stated that they had received a legal notice [Annex.C-2], which was duly replied through their reply [Annex.R-1].  The OPs strongly contesting their rights with regard to the set off have stood their ground and claim no deficiency on their part. OPs further pray for the dismissal of the present complaint, in favour of the OPs, with heavy costs.

3.              Parties led their respective evidences.

4.              Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the OP, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions:-

[i]     The basic facts which have come to light is that the CC had maintained a previous savings account with the OP-2 and thereafter, while closing the said account opened another one with OP-2 itself and transferred an amount of Rs.18,385/- from her old account to new one.

[ii]    It is also established that the CC had given an ECS mandate to Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Ltd. for deduction of Rs.7411/- from her previous account No. 55024586703.

[iii]   The OPs have also admitted to the fact that there did not exist any ECS mandate with regard to her new savings account no. 55140263438. But as they had inadvertently debited the two installments of the month of May and June, 2010, to the account of some another customer, and in order to correct the same discrepancy, it was finally debited from the fresh account No. 55140263438 of the CC by executing their right to set off. OPs have also strongly contested that they were very much within their rights and capacity in doing so.

[iv]   The OPs though have claimed to have replied to the written request of the CC dated 5.7.2010 [Annex.C-1], but the same is not brought on record by the OPs.  The OPs further claim to have replied to the legal notice dated 1.10.2010 [Annex.C-2] through their letter dated 28.12.2010 [Annex.R-1] as claimed by them, but not marked on the file.  We believe that the first reply which the OPs have claimed does not exist at all. Furthermore, even the reply to the legal notice is an afterthought by the OPs, as the present complaint was already filed on 20.12.2010 and notices were issued on 27.12.2010. 

[v]    The main point that needs our observation is to the effect that even though there was no ECS mandate given by the CC for her new account no. 55140263438, the OPs still held the right of set off any claim that had accrued on an older account and the same could be debited from her new savings account. As the OPs have not brought on record any rules, regulations or law which empowered them to deduct the money of the CC for her new savings account no. 55140263438.

[vi]   We believe that it is not only the act of deducting money from the new savings account of the CC, but even the OPs had deducted the amount forwarded to Mahindra Holidays and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. from the account of some other customer, which they claim to have been done inadvertently, as mentioned in the lower half of page 2 of their reply/version.  OPs have also mentioned that the CC never cancelled the ECS mandate given by her previously in her old savings account. To our mind, we believe that once the CC had closed down her older account and even, submitted the unused the Cheque[s] and ATM card, nothing more was required on her part to inform about the cancellation of the ECS mandate. The deduction of money from different accounts by the OPs also shows the callous nature of work of their employees. The OPs have failed to reveal the identity of the account number, as well as the name of the account holder from whose account they had first set off the amount as claimed by them, was due towards the CC.

[vii]  Such kind of working only indicates to the fact that having committed a mistake once, the OPs can to any length, in order to cover their misdeeds. The OPs have claimed to have inherited the right to set off the liabilities of the CC. They have failed to bring on record any document by which they are empowered to do so.  As a matter of fact, the said liability against the CC was created by them by releasing the amount to the bankers of Mahindra Holidays and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. by the OPs and thereafter, in order to make good their loss, they, at first, debited the amount from an unknown customer, and after having located the account of the CC, did the same to her.

[viii]  In our opinion the OPs have miserably failed in their duty of the custodian of the public money; whereas, they have also faulted in acting in a manner which is not empowered by any law, rule and regulation.  The OPs have failed to bring any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence in their defence, hence, their version/ statement cannot be believed.      

5.              In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs to revert Rs.12,385/- in the account of the CC, along with interest @9% per annum from 12.06.2010, till it is credited. The OP is further saddled with Rs.10,000/- as compensation, along with Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs.

6.              The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt; thereafter, OP shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the aforesaid amount, except for litigation expenses.  

7.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11^th November 2011.                                                                     

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER