BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

 26^th DAY OF MAY 2016

O R D E R

SRI. P.V SINGRI, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OP) with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay him compensation of Rs.80,000/-.

2. The brief averments made in the complaint are as under:

The complainant is working as Regional Manager Sales for South Region of ORIX HI Fidelity Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaoan.  In the month of November 2014 complainant visited OP Branch situated at Langford Road, Bangalore to open an account.  The complainant met one Mr.Syed, Sales Officer and discussed regarding opening of an account.  On asking, the complainant gave the name and address of the company where he is working and also gave his visiting card.  The said Syed after checking on his system told the complainant that he can open his salary account with them.  The complainant signed certain forms necessary for opening the account and he was issued with the cheque book and debit card along with ATM pin and internet pin of his account number of ICICI Bima Nagar Branch, Bangalore.  When the complainant asked as to why he has been given account number of Bima Nagar Branch he was told that all the salary accounts are maintained in the said branch.

The complainant thereafter informed that, the Head Office at Gurgaon with regard to opening of said account and requested to deposit his salary and other payments in his account.  On 8^th December 2014 the salary of the complainant was deposited in his account at ICICI Gurgaon Branch.  On the same day at 8 PM the complainant visited ICICI ATM situated at Wilson Garden but it showed no balance.  Again, he visited the ATM on 9^th December 2014 and again it showed no balance.  That the complainant contacted the Call Centre of ICICI and they informed that his account is non active due to some reasons and asked him to contact the Branch.  The complainant visited Langford Road Branch and met the concerned but could not get satisfactory answer.  The said officer told that on checking with HR department of the said company they informed that the complainant is not their employee.  Immediately the complainant called the HR Manager of his company and he told him that none from the ICICI Bank have contacted him and made enquiry about the complainant.  Then the said official confirmed that they have contacted one ORIX Company which is at Bangalore and some misunderstanding has occurred.  He assured that the account will be activated within days.  However till today the account has not been activated.  Due to the said deficiency on the part of OP Bank the complainant was unable to pay his room rent on 8^th December, EMI of Car loan on 10^th December, credit card payment on 12^th December and Education loan to J&K Bank.  The complainant has been put to great difficult and inconvenience because of the said act of OP Bank.

For the aforesaid reasons, the complainant prays for awarding him a compensation of Rs.80,000/- together with cost.

3. OPs.1 & 2 appeared through their advocate and filed their common version contending in brief as under:

That the complainant had visited ICICI Bank, Langford Road Branch, Bangalore on 09.11.2014 to open a salary account.  The complainant was attended to by a Sales Officer and complainant had informed the Sales Officer that he working in an organization known as ‘Orix’ and produced his original passport as KYC proof.  The Sales Officer checked the documents and upon internal checks found that a corporate by name ‘Orix Auto Infrastructure Services’ to be having a relationship with the Bank.  When the Relationship Officer of OP Bank met the Authorized Signatory of the corporate in order to get their signature on the form, the Relationship Officer informed that the complainant was not an employee of the said corporate.  After due investigation, it was found that, the complainant was an employee of a different corporate by name ‘Orix Hi Fidelity Pvt. Ltd.’  The complainant then visited the Bank on 10.12.2014 and was informed by the Salary Team Relationship Manager that since the corporate had no relationship with the Bank, the salary account cannot be opened.  The Relationship Manager tried to persuade Mr.M.S Chowhan, Human Resources, Orix Hi Fidelity Services Pvt. Ltd., to start a relationship with ICICI Bank so that the complainant could open a salary account with the Bank.  Mr.M.S Chowhan, rejected the offer and refused to start a relationship with ICICI Bank.  Since, the complainant did not want to open a savings account in the Bank; a salary account could not be opened without the Bank having relationship with the concerned corporate.  Therefore, the salary team closed the account of the complainant on 23.12.2014 on duly informing the complainant.  The Regional Head and the Regional Sales Head had intimated the complainant that the salary account cannot be opened since the corporate does not have any relationship with ICICI Bank.  An e-mail apologizing for the inconvenience had also been sent to the complainant on 26.12.2014.  There is no deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank.  The alleged loss the complainant claims to have suffered is not caused by the Bank.  There is no fault of the OP Bank in not being able to open a salary account in the complainant name.

For the aforesaid reasons, the OPs pray for dismissal of complaint with exemplary cost.        

4. After version was filed by the OPs, the complainant was called upon to file his affidavit evidence.  Accordingly, he filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of oral evidence.  Thereafter, one Anuj Kaila, Legal Manager working in ICICI Bank, M.G Road, Bangalore filed his affidavit evidence in support of the averments made in the version.  The complainant has submitted his written arguments.  OPs neither filed their written arguments nor submitted oral arguments.

5. The points that arise for our determination in this case are as under:

        6. Perused the allegations made in the complaint, averments made in the version, sworn testimony of both parties, documents produced by both sides, written arguments submitted by complainant and other materials placed on record.

7. Our answer to the above issues are as under:

REASONS

8.  The complainant in his affidavit evidence reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.  The complainant claims that while opening savings Bank account in his name for salary remittance through his employer, he handed over the authorities of OP Bank like visiting card, identity proof such as passport, as well as pan card and after having verified all the documents and the address of his employer, OP Bank opened a salary account in the name of complainant at Bima Nagar Branch and handed over a cheque book, debit card along with ATM pin and internet pin of his account bearing No.142001528020.

9. OP Bank claims that, since the complainant informed the Sales Officer that he works for an organization known as ‘Orix’, he was permitted to open an salary account.  What could be gathered from the averments made in the version that the complainant was permitted to open an salary account thinking that he is an employee of ‘Orix Auto Infrastructure Services’ having relationship with the OP Bank and on enquiry with the HR of the said ‘Orix Auto Infrastructure Services’ it was found that the complainant was not their employee and the subsequent investigation revealed that, the complainant is employee of ‘Orix Hi Fidelity Pvt. Ltd.,’ who do not have business relationship with the OP Bank.  Therefore, the salary remitted by the employer of the complainant could not be remitted to his account.  The OP Bank claims that, the complainant gave the name of his Company as ‘ORIX’ only and their Sales Officer mistook is to ‘Orix Auto Infrastructure Services’ which has business relationship with the Bank.  Therefore, they claimed that there is no any deficiency of service on their part.  It is further contended by the OP Bank that, it is the complainant who failed to give the correct name of his employer thereby resulting in all sorts of inconvenience to him.  However the OP Bank did not explain as to how they could trace Orix Hi Fidelity Pvt. Ltd., of which the complainant is an employee.  Further the contention of the OP Bank that their Sales Officer permitted the complainant to open the salary account, believing that he is employee of Orix Auto Infrastructure Service is falsified by their own e-mail dated 22.12.2014 addressed to the complainant at Annexure-A.  The relevant portion in the said letter reads as under:

“We regret that you were not informed by our official that the salary account cannot be opened without the corporate being listed for salary account relationship.  We have sensitised the team concerned on the matter and assure you that necessary corrective steps have been taken by us on the matter”.

10. From the said e-mail letter of the OP Bank it is quite clear that, the concerned Sales Officer of the OP Bank himself was not aware that the salary account cannot be opened without the corporate being listed for salary account relationship.  Therefore, he permitted the complainant to open the account in their Bank and gave him the account number and also issued cheque book as well as the debit card etc.  Because of the ignorance and negligence of the officer of OP Bank the complainant is put to great hardship and inconvenience as he could not draw his salary despite the same being remitted to his account by his employer.  The conduct of OP Bank in opening account in the name of the complainant and thereafter failing to provide him requisite services certainly amounts to deficiency in service.  Because of the negligence of the OP the complainant could not collect his salary on time and could not pay his room rent, EMI of Car loan, credit card payment as well as EMI of education loan etc.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the OP Bank has to be directed to compensate the complainant for the deficiency in service resulting in hardship, inconvenience and mental agony.

11. In the given circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that, justice will be met by directing the OP Bank to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant together with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.    

12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:   

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is allowed in part.  OPs.1 & 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for deficiency in service together with litigation cost of Rs.5000/-.

The OPs shall comply the order within four weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 26^th day of May 2016)

MEMBER                           MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

Vln* 

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 06.07.2015.

1. Sri.Manmohan Sudan.

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite parties-1 & 2 dated 14.07.2015.

1. Sri.Anuj Kaila.  

Document produced by the Opposite parties.1 & 2:

MEMBER                            MEMBER                     PRESIDENT

Vln*