Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/167/2012

Dr. Gopal Kumar Ranganathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking - Opp.Party(s)

N.A.Nissar Ahmed

02 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  27.07.2012

                                                                        Date of Order :  02.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.167/2012

WEDNESDAY THIS 2^ND  DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Dr. Gopal Kumar Ranganathan,

S/o. K.S.Ranganathan,

Gurukripa, GF.1, KPM Viswa Apartment,

New No.4, Old No.20,

Viswanathapuram 1^st Street,

Chennai – 24.                                             .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

1.  The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Limited,

Rep. by Assistant Vice President,

96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Chennai – 4.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking,

Corporation Limited,

96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

Chennai – 4.                                               .. Opposite parties .

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :    M/s. N.A.Nissar Ahmed & others   

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. R & P. Partner  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages, mental agony and hardship and also to pay cost of the complaint.  

 

 1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he had NRE HSBC Account No.041505926006 in the opposite parties’ bank and the said account was  closed by the opposite party on 13.7.2010.  The complainant also submit that on 11.7.2010 he issued a cheque No.380518 in favour of G.Meenakshi Sundaram for a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was returned dishonoured as “account blocked”.   The complainant further state that the complainant received a letter on 20.7.2010 that the 2^nd opposite party closed the account on 13.7.2010 and sent an intimation along with the cheque for Rs.3,25,440.12.  Further the complainant submit  that without knowing the reason of closer by the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party and clarified the reason for the closer.   The opposite party informed that the account has been closed erroneously and the opposite parties are taking suitable arrangement to reinstate the account within 10 working days.    The complainant issued one another cheque on 28.1.2011 bearing No.380522 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- was also returned as insufficient fund.     The complainant further contended that the pay order dated 13.7.2010 for Rs.3,25,440.12 was returned along with the legal notice dated 8.1.2011 acknowledged by the opposite parties  on 13.1.2011 and as such the allegation that it was sent along with legal notice on 27.1.2011 is not only without any basis but also a factually incorrect and misleading statement,  consequently the allegation that the pay order has been credited to the complainant’s  account on 28.1.2011 is also misleading & blatantly false.  As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party state that the opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.  the opposite parties submit that the 1^st  opposite party admits that the complainant maintained an NRE account bearing No.041505926006 with it.   The said account was inadvertently closed on 13.7.2010 and the monies to the tune of Rs.3,25,440.12.   It is also submitted that cheque No.380518 drawn in favour of one Mr.G.Meenakshisundaram came up for clearing to the 1^st opposite party on 14.7.2010 and since the said account was closed on 13.7.2010 the said cheque was returned.   The complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and informed the difficulty in hand with the said account and therefore the 1^st opposite party had vide its letter dated 20.7.2010 informed that the said account was closed erroneously.   The opposite parties submit that as per the guidelines of the RBI the opposite parties have always redressed the grievance of its customers.  The opposite party had contacted the complainant and subsequently the complainant returned the cashiers order had defaced the cahiers order and credited the said account with Rs.3,25,440.12 on 28.1.2011.   

3.     The opposite parties further state that  the statement of account clearly  reflects that till 27.1.2011 the complainant had maintained a Nil balance in the said account.   This being the situation the complainant had issued a cheque bearing No.380522 for Rs.27,000/- which was returned due to insufficient funds on 14.1.2011.   The said account did not have sufficient  balance to meet the cheque return fee plus service tax, the opposite party had issued the letter dated 19.1.2011 informing the complainant that the said account was overdrawn.   The said fact reveals that the complainant did not maintain a balance in the said account but issued a cheque, which was dishonored.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

4.   The point for the consideration is:  

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards damages for mental agony and hardship caused by the opposite party for committing deficiency of service and unfair trade practice with cost as prayed for ?

5.      ON POINT :

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  Admittedly the complainant had NRE HSBC Account No.041505926006 in the opposite parties’ bank.  It is also   admitted that the said account was  closed by the opposite party on 13.7.2010.  The learned counsel for the complainant contended that on 11.7.2010 he issued a cheque No.380518 in favour of G.Meenakshi Sundaram for a sum of Rs.30,000/- which was returned dishonoured as “account blocked”. The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that in utter dismay the complainant received a letter on 20.7.2010 that the 2^nd opposite party closed the account on 13.7.2010 and sent an intimation Ex.A3 along with the cheque for Rs.3,25,440.12.   The learned counsel for the complainant further contended that without knowing the reason of closer by the opposite party, the complainant approached the opposite party and clarified the reason for the closer.   The opposite party raised contention and informed that the account has been closed erroneously and the opposite parties are taking suitable arrangement to reinstate the account within 10 working days.    The complainant issued one another cheque on 28.1.2011 bearing No.380522 for a sum of Rs.27,000/- was also returned as insufficient fund.  The opposite parties even after wrongly closing the account sent letter claiming cheque returned service charges.  The opposite parties even after assuring that the account will be reinstated within ten days has not taken any steps and reinstated the account only on 28.1.2011.   After receiving legal notice sent by  the complainant the opposite parties raised untenable contention by way of reply to the notice dated 8.1.2011 and 29.1.2011 and requested to accept a token payment of INR.11239 as a service gesture.   The learned counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant was seriously affected by mental agony for no reason of his account was closed when the balance amount of Rs.3,25,440/- was in his account the opposite party had also returned dishonoured the cheque issued by him.   The complainant having his own reputation in the society caused disrepute due to the cheque being bounced.   The complainant is claiming a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards such damages.  But the complainant has not taken suitable steps and proved such a huge claim.  The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the account was closed inadvertently on 13.7.2010.  The amount in the account a sum of Rs.3,25,440/-  was sent to the complainant as cash order as per Ex.A1.  Since there is no amount in the account of complainant the cheque presented by one Mr.Meenakshi Sundaram was dishonoured with an endorsement account blocked.  If the account is closed by the opposite party; what is necessity araised for return endorsement, “account blocked” as per Ex.A2 which itself proves the unfair trade practice.  Further the learned counsel for the opposite parties contented that as a service gesture the opposite parties requested the complainant to accept a sum of Rs.11,239/- as per Ex.A8 was totally rejected by the complainant.  Even after the knowledge of closer came to the opposite party the account was  rightly reinstated only on 29.1.2011 i.e. after lapse of 200 days proves the deficiency of service.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party  contended  that  the  claim   of Rs.20,00,000/-  towards  compensation is exorbitant and imaginary.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the point is answered accordingly. 

        In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only)  towards mental agony and also cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

                The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.       

  Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  2^nd   day  of  August 2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1-13.7.2010 - Copy of  Closure proceeds with postal cover.

Ex.A2- 15.7.2010 - Copy of Memo together with returned cheque.

Ex.A3- 20.7.2010 - Copy of Letter by the opposite parties.

Ex.A4- 8.1.2011  - Copy of Notice and Ack. card.

Ex.A5- 19.1.2011 - Copy of letter by opposite party.

Ex.A6- 18.1.2011 - Copy of Memo and returned cheque.

Ex.A7- 29.1.2011 - Copy of Notice and Ack. Cards.

Ex.A8- 3.3.2011  - Copy of Letter by opposite party.

Opposite party’s side document: -   

Ex.B1- 8.3.2011    - Copy of Airway bill issued by Blue Dart Courier.

Ex.B2- 12.10.2010         - Copy of reply letter to the complainant by the

                               opposite party.

Ex.B3-         -       - Copy of Statement of accounts from Aug’10 till 28.1.2011.

 

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.