Karnataka

Bangalore 3rd Additional

CC/66/2022

Smt.Rathna Jayaram - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Indusind Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

27 Apr 2023

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/66/2022
( Date of Filing : 23 Mar 2022 )
 
1. Smt.Rathna Jayaram
W/o.Sri.B.S.Jayaram Aged about 78 Years, Residing at No.58,Flat No.F-01, Rangavihar,First Floor,2nd Cross, Dr.Masthi Venkatesh Iyengar Road,Gavipuram Extension, Bengaluru-560004.
2. Sri.B.S.Jayaram
S/o.Late B.Sreenivashaiah Aged about 84 Years, Residing at No.58,Flat No.F-01, Rangavihar,First Floor,2nd Cross, Dr.Masthi Venkatesh Iyengar Road,Gavipuram Extension, Bengaluru-560004.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Indusind Bank Ltd
Basavanagudi Branch, Bull Temple Road,Bengaluru-560004. Rep by its Branch Manager.
2. The Indusind Bank Ltd
Registered Office No.2401, Gen.Thimmayya Road, Pune-411001.Maharashtra State Rep by its Authorised Signatory
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SRI. SHIVARAMA K PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. SRI. RAJU K.S MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 27 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

                                                         Date of filing:  23.03.2022                                                         Date of Disposal: 27.04.2023

 

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

                                                

DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                                                                   

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.66/2022

                                                                      

PRESENT:

 

  •  

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

 

1) Smt. Rathna Jayaram,

W/o. Sri.B.S. Jayaram,

Aged About 78 Years,

Residing at No.38, Flat No.F-01,

“Rangavihar”, First Floor,

  1.  

Iyengar Road, Gavipuram Extension,

  •  

 

2) Sri. B.S. Jayaram,

S/o. Late B.Sreenivashaiah,

Aged About 84 Years,

Residing at No.38, Flat No.F-01,

“Rangavihar”, First Floor,

  1.  

Iyengar Road, Gavipuram Extension,

  •  

 

(Complainant No.1 & 2 are rep by

Sri. P.R.Muralidhar, Advocate)

  •  

 

 

- V/s -

 

 

1) The INDUSIND Bank Limited,

Basavanagudi Branch,

Bull Temple Road,

  •  

Rep. by its Branch Manager.

 

 

2) The INDUSI ND Bank Limited,

Registered Office: # 2401,

Gen. Thimmayya Road,

Pune-411 001.

Maharastra State,

Rep. by its Authorized Signatory.

 

(OP No.1 & 2 are rep. by Sri. S.M.Anees

Ahamed, Advocate)

  •  

 

  •  

//JUDGEMENT//

 

 

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

 

01.    The complainants have filed this complaint Under Section 34 & 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- and such other reliefs as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

 

02.    It is not in dispute that, one Nagendra Shastry was assigned as a Relationship Manager of opposite party No.1 -Bank and his responsibility was to build up good rapport with the customers assigned to him by the opposite party-Bank and to promote and convince the customer to avail various financial services offered by the Bank.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant has lodged a complaint with Joint Commissioner of Police on 09.08.2021 and had sent another letter to Inspector of Police, Hanumantha Nagar, Bangalore, on 03.09.2021. 

 

03.    Further it is not in dispute that, subsequently Nagendra Shastry upon various other complaints, opposite party-Bank had kept him under suspension pending enquiry and during the said period he has committed suicide on 01.08.2021.  Opposite party-Bank has also filed a complaint before Hanumantha Nagara police station and the police authorities have filed an FIR against Nagendra Shastry and his other associates and opposite party – Bank had advised the complainant to approach police authorities in respect of the his grievance against Late Nagendra Shastry. 

 

04.    It is the further case of the complainants that, complainant No.1 being a senior citizen aged about 78 years and complainant No.2 being the husband of complainant No.1 aged About 84 years as part of life-time savings and purely depending on interest accrued thereon had deposited the amount in the form of five FDs, a total sum amount of Rs.31,84,116.88.  This being the fact during the year 2020-2021 when the entire country was suffering from COVID-19 pandemic the government had issued complete lockdown.  Taking advantage of this the said Nagendra Shastry being the Relationship Manager visited the residence of the complainants to do door step service.  The complainants wanted to keep the above five FDs to be renewed and are to be consolidated in to a single FD account and they discussed with the said Relationship Manager and he took the mobile phone of the 1st complainant and downloaded the said App. Since COVID-19 restrictions were there, the complainants were not able to visit the Bank and the phone call to the said Nagendar Shastry was switched-off and on 06.08.2021 complainant had written a letter to opposite party complaining of non-receipt of single consolidated renewed FD certificate for the above said amount.

 

05.    Further since there was no response and all the efforts of the complainant came in vain, the complainant discovered the fraud and misappropriation of funds done by opposite party Bank.  The complainant has lodged a complaint with Joint Commissioner of police on 09.08.2021 and it was intimated by the police to the complainant that, the case has been registered by Hanumantha Nagara police in crime No.159/2021, under section 406, 409, 420, 465, 468, 120(b) read with section 34 IPC against Nagendra Shastry and others.  Thereby the complaint lodged by the complainant came to be dropped. 

 

06.    Further the complainant approached Ombudsmen on 29.09.2021 and the Ombudsmen did not give any relief, rather closed the complaint.  Further the complainant got issued legal notice dated: 20.10.2021 to opposite party-Bank and the Bank has replied the notice on 20.11.2021 and OP-Bank had admitted the fraud committed by its employee.  Further the complainant had written a complaint on 02.11.2021 to Reserve Bank Of India and Reserve Bank of India also has not sollowed the grievance of the complainant rather gave an intimation to the complainant on 23.12.2021 stating that, the case has already been closed by Banking Ombudsmen.  Since the employee of the opposite party-Bank has committed fraud and deceived the complainant and in-spite of request and notice been issued, the opposite party-Bank did not refund the said amount.  Hence, the present complaint came to be filed.

 

07.    It is the further case of the opposite party that, during discussion with the complainant it was learnt that, Late Nagendra Shastry in his personal capacity has lured the complainant to invest in third party financial produces and the same was not related to opposite party Bank, offering greater return than what was offered by opposite party bank.  Further the complainant through mobile banking application has transaction funds to the tune of Rs.32,00,000/-.  Hence the complainant is fully responsible in respect of these transactions.  Further the complaint filed before this Commission by the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer Dispute as there is neither any unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party-Bank nor any deficiency of service.  Hence, sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

08.    To prove the case, the complainant No.1 (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.21 documents.  The Deputy Branch Manager of opposite party No.1 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 to EX.R.9 documents.

 

09.    Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments and counsel for complainant has filed a citation with memo.

 

10.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

 

  (2) Whether the complainants are entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

 

      (3) What order ?

 

11.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

POINT NO.1 :  In affirmative

POINT NO.2 :  Partly in affirmative

POINT NO.3 :  As per the final order for the following;

 

REASONS

                                              

12.    POINT NO.1:-  The complainant No.1 (PW.1) and opposite party (RW.1) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

 

13.    It is not in dispute that, Nagendra Shastry was an employee at OP No.1 – Bank and after the fraud said to have been committed came to the notice of the Bank, the Bank has suspended him and during enquiry he committed suicide.  The complainant has produced Xerox copy of 05 FD receipts vide EX.P.6, Xerox copy of complaint dated: 09.08.2021 and 03.09.2021 vide EX.P.8 & P.9 respectively, copy of FIR dated: 02.08.2021 and 11.08.2021 vide EX.P.11 & P.12.  RW.1 has produced EX.R.4 the Bank account extract indicating the withdrawal of the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- from the account of the complainant.

 

14.    It is the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party – Bank that, certain credits have been received in to complainant’s savings account as per the instruction of the complainants.  Hence it could be inferred that, there were several personal transactions entered in to by the complainant with late Nagendra Shastry along with his accomplices and complainant had wilfully suppressed the said fact.  Hence, since the complainant himself has violated the law, he is not entitled for any relief.

 

15.    It is also contended that, the dispute under the complaint is not a Consumer dispute.  We feel the complainant had an account with the opposite party-Bank.  Further the said Nagendra Shastry was a Relationship Manager of opposite party-Bank.  Further during the year 2019 to 2021 there was COVID-19 restriction.  Since the complainant has opened a bank account with the opposite party, the Bank will be the guardian for the said account and more responsibility is casted on the Bank.  Admittedly on enquiry it was found that, Nagendra Shastry had committed fraud and he was kept under suspension by the Bank.  Therefore any act committed by an employee of the opposite party during the discharge of his duty, the Bank is liable to answer.  The Bank is a service provider as contemplated under section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Further the complainant has availed the service from the Bank thereby the complainant is a consumer as contemplated under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Therefore the dispute in between the complainant and the Bank with regard to refund of the said amount amounts to a Consumer Dispute within the meaning of section 2(8) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Hence there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party – Bank.

 

16.    It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainants that, on 06.08.2021 the complainant had written letter to the opposite party – Bank alleging non-receipt of fixed deposit receipts vide EX.P.7 and had sent legal notice vide EX.P.15 calling upon the opposite party – Bank to make necessary arrangement to pay Rs.32,17,827/- and for that, the opposite party – Bank gave a reply vide EX.P.16 disowning their liability to pay the amount.  We feel since the opposite party – Bank is responsible for the act of its employee, opposite party – Bank is liable to return the amount deceived by Nagendra Shastry while discharging financial dues.  Hence non-refund of the same amounts to deficiency of service.

 

17.    In support of the contention counsel for the complainant relies the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.8775-8776 OF 2016, in between Pradeep Kumar & Another Vs. Post Master General & Others.  We have considered the principles laid down in the said case.  Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.

 

18.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant claimed to refund an amount of Rs.32,17,827/-.  Since renewed FD in one consolidated FD has not been issued by opposite party, the complainant is entitle for the said amount as per law.

 

19.    The complainant further sought a direction to the opposite party – Bank to pay an interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- for a sum of Rs.4,50,496/- and further 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization on the amount of Rs.32,17,827/-.  We feel the complainant is entitle for interest on the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- from the date of the debit of the said amount to the account of the complainants till the complaint been filed at the rate of 7% per annum to the tune of Rs.4,50,496/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.32,17,827/- from the date of complaint till realization.

 

20.    Further the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- towards compensation.  We feel because of the act of the employee of opposite party – Bank the complainants had suffered much and it appears that, complainant No.1 is a women and complainant No.2 is a senior citizen aged about 84 years.  Hence the complainants are entitle for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

 

21.    Further the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.  The act of employee of the opposite party – Bank made the complainant to get issued legal notice and to file this complaint.  Hence the complainants are entitle for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly we answer this Point partly in affirmative.

 

22.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

 

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.32,17,827/- along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- from the date of debit of the amount from the account of the complainants to the tune of Rs.4,50,496/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization on the amount of Rs.32,17,827/- and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

 

The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days.   In case, the opposite party fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.60,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

 

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 27th Day of April, 2023)       

 

                                     

 

 

  • REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
  •  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

//ANNEXURE//

 

Witness examined for the complainant side:

 

Smt. Rathna Jayaram, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

 

Documents marked for the complainant side:

 

 

  1. Notarized copy of Aadhar Card – EX.P.1.
  2. Notarized copy of PAN Card – Ex.P.2.
  3. Notarized copy of Aadhar card of complainant’s husband – Ex.P.3.
  4. Notarized copy of PAN card of complainant’s husband – Ex.P.4.
  5. Copy of bank statement – EX.P.5.
  6. Copy of five FD receipts – EX.P.6.
  7. Copy of letter dt.06.08.2021 – EX.P.7.
  8. Copy of complaint dt.09.08.2021 – EX.P.8.
  9. Copy of complaint dt.03.09.2021 – EX.P.9.
  10. Copy of police endorsement dt.07.09.2021 – EXP.10.
  11. Copy FIR dt.02.08.2021 – EX.P.11.
  12. Copy of FIR dt.11.08.2021 – EX.P.12.
  13. Copy of bank statement – Ex.P.13.
  14. Copy of letter dt.05.10.2021 – EX.P.14.
  15. Copy of legal notice EX.P.15.
  16. Copy of reply dt.20.11.2021 – EX.P.16
  17. Copy of letter dt.25.10.2021 – Ex.P.17.
  18. Copy of intimation by RBI – EX.P.18.
  19. Computer downloaded whatsapp massages – EX.P.19.
  20. CD – EX.P.20
  21. Certificate U/s. 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act – EX.P.21.

 

 

Witness examined for the opposite parties side:        

Sri. Aslam Pasha, Deputy Branch Manager of opposite party No.1 – Bank (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

 

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of authorization letter dt.07.06.2022 – EX.R.1.

2. Certificate U/s 2(A) of Bankers book of evidence – EX.R.2.

3. Certificate U/s 65(B) of Indian evidence act – EX.R.3.

4. Statement of account – EX.R.4.

5. Copy of reply dt. 20.11.2021  – EX.R.5.

6. Copy of legal notice dt.22.10.2021 – EX.R.6.

7. Copy of the letter dt.25.10.2021 – EX.R.7.

8. Copy of letter dt.05.10.2021 – Ex.R.8.

9. Copy of letter dt.06.08.2021 – Ex.R.9.

 

 

 

 

  • REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
  •  

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI. SHIVARAMA K]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SRI. RAJU K.S]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.