Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

99/2013

S.Stephen, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Axis Bank, - Opp.Party(s)

D.Ramesh

22 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.04.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.11.2016

 

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

 

TUESDAY THE 22^nd  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.99/2013

 

 

S.Stephan,

Plot No.129-A,

7^th Cross Street,

Prakash Nagar,

Pooniammanmedu,

Chennai – 600 110.

                                                                                        ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Manager,

AXIS Bank,

Anna Nagar Branch,

Plot No.3635,

New No.87, Old No.17,

3^rd Avenue, Anna Nagar East,

Chennai – 102.

 

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                     : 07.05.2013

Counsel for Complainant                          : M/s. D.Ramesh, S.Venkatesan

Counsel for Opposite Party                     : M/s. R.Palani Kumar Ramesh

                                                                   R.Venkata Varathan

 

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 IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is having a savings account in the Opposite Party/Bank in Account No.016010100602010. When the Complainant requested the Opposite Party for locker facility, they have asked him to take Met Life Policy. Due to the continuous request and pressure of the Opposite Party/ bank, the Complainant took Met Life Policy and also availed an Auto Debit Facility (Electronic Clearance Service) for Met Life Policy (Policy No.20166241) to pay the yearly premium amount. He decided not to continue the said policy; he made a request to the Opposite Party bank to cancel the Auto Debit Facility (Electronic Clearance Service) to Met Life Policy No.20166241. The Opposite Party accepted the request and also issued the acknowledgement dated 09.10.2012  for the said request. Inspite of his request dated 09.10.2012 and the acknowledgement of the Opposite Party dated 09.10.2012, to cancel the Auto Debit Facility (ECS) to the said Met Life Policy, a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been debited from the Complainant’s account by transaction dated 15.11.2012. Due to the above said deficiency in service, debiting Rs.25,000/-, the Complainant has suffered great loss, hardship and mental agony.  The Complainant sent a letter dated 20.11.2012 to the Opposite Party, but neither the amount of Rs.25,000/- which was wrongly debited from his account has been credited to his account nor any reply from the Opposite Party. So, the above said act is nothing but a clear case of deficiency in service in rendering service to the Complainant. Since the deficiency is service caused great loss and hardship and mental agony to the Complainant, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation for the same and hence the Complainant filed this Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY  IN BRIEF:

          It is mandate on the part of the Customer i.e, the Complainant to simultaneously send the instruction to the “User Institution” to the effect that he has withdrawn the ECs instruction from his banker. In the present case the Complainant availed the ECS Facility to pay the yearly Premium to the Met Life Policy. Though he has given the withdrawal instruction to the Opposite Party he has not simultaneously given instruction to the Met Life Policy. The Met Life Policy is closed and the Complainant has realized the amount which is paid by him through the ECS facility from Met Life India Insurance Company on 20.11.2012 which include the sum of Rs.25,000/- which is the subject matter of the present Complaint. Therefore the plea suffered with great loss, hardship and mental agony are imaginary created for the purpose of filing the present Complaint and there is no financial loss to the Complainant as alleged by him. Therefore the Complainant is stopped from making the claim to return/redeposit the sum of Rs.25,000/-. The Complainant has realized the amount from Met Life India Insurance Company on 20.11.2012 he has suppressed the facts in the Complaint and managed to confuse this Hon’ble Forum that as if he has not received from the Met Life Insurance Company. Hence the Complaint has to be dismissed on the sole ground that the Complainant has approached this Hon’ble Forum with unclean hands with costs.

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

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

4.POINT : 1

          The Complainant is the customer of the Opposite Party/Bank and he has SB Account No.16010100602010 with the Opposite Party. The Complainant took a policy with Met Life and also availed an Auto Debit Facility (ECS) for Met Life Policy to pay the yearly premium amount from his account. The Complainant decided not to continue the said policy, he made a request to the Opposite Party to cancel the Auto Debit Facility and the said request was acknowledged by him on 09.10.2012.  However a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from his account on 15.11.2012 as evidenced  under Ex.A3.

          5. The Complainant contended that even after acknowledging the request of the Complainant to cancel the Auto Debit Facility and after that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was deducted is a clear case  of Deficiency in Service on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore  after issuing Ex.A4, legal notice that he had filed this Complaint to refund the debited amount for compensation  with cost.

          6. The Opposite Party replied that though a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited through Auto Debit Facility, the said amount with other amount a sum of Rs.70,396/- was credited into the account of the Complainant on 20.11.2012 and  there was no monetary loss to him and therefore the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and prays to dismiss the Complaint.

          7. Ex.A3 statement of account shows a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited from the account of the Complainant on 15.11.2012 towards his met policy No.20166241. Ex.B1 is the statement of account of the Complainant filed by the Opposite Party for the period 01.09.2012 to 31.12.2012. In that statement on 15.11.2012 a sum of Rs.25,000/- debited towards met policy. On 20.11.2012 a sum of Rs.70,396/- was credited by the Met Life India Insurance Co., through NEFT transactions. This credit amount was not denied by the Complainant. The met life credited such amount after closing the policy of the Complainant as requested by him and credited in his account. The credit amount of Rs.70,396/-to the Complainant account was suppressed by him. Therefore, it is clear that a sum of Rs.25,000/- was debited on 15.11.2012 from the Complainant accounts was credited in his account with a gap of five days. Therefore, there is monetary loss to the Complainant debiting amount from his account.

          8. The Complainant argued that the act of the Opposite Party is a clear case of Deficiency in Service   in rendering service to him and such service caused great loss and hardship and mental agony to him. Since there is no monetary loss to the Complainant as contended by him there is no loss to him. The debited amount was credited into the Complainant account within five days. During those five days in what way hardship and mental agony caused to him has not been pleaded in the Complaint. Therefore the Complainant has not proved that due to the  deficiency  in service of the Opposite Party, he suffered with hardship and therefore we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service.    

 9.POINT :2        

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd   day of November 2016.

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 09.10.2012                   Ack. from Opposite Party

Ex.A2 dated 20.11.2012                   Letter from Complainant

Ex.A3 dated 20.11.2012                   Statement of account

Ex.A4 dated 20.12.2012                   Lawyer’s notice

Ex.A5 dated 27.12.2012                   Reply from Opposite Party

Ex.A6 dated 09.10.2012                   E-mail from Met Life Insurance co.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

Ex.B1 dated 01.01.2013                   Statement of Account

                to 31.05.2013

                                               

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT