Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/405/2012

D.Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Reliance Mutual Fund ,Reliance Capital Assets,Management Chemical & 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Kiran rao

26 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

        BEFORE          HON’BLE THIRU JUSTICE R. REGUPATHI        PRESIDENT

                                  THIRU.J. JAYARAM                                 JUDICIAL MEMBER 

                                   TMT. P. BAKIYAVATHI                                                MEMBER

 

                                                                                        F.A.405/2012

[Against the Order in  C.C No. 501/2010 dated  30.3.2012  on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore]

Dated this the 26^TH  day of MAY 2015

 

D.Kumar,

S/o Dakshinamoorthy

12, Ganapathi Maanagar

Coimbatore  641 006                               ..Appellant/complainant

                                         Vs

1.The Manager,

Reliance Mutual Fund

Reliance Capital Assets Management Ltd,

Anil Dhirubai Ambani Group

575/C, Sylaja Chambers,

DB Road

R.S.Puram, Coimbatore 600 002

 

2. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Nanjundapuram Branch,

7, Mayflower Complex

Sakthi Garden, Nanjundapuram Road

Coimbatore -36

 

3. The Branch Manager

State Bank of India

Ram Nagar Branch

Cross Cut Road,

Gandhipuram

Coimbatore 641 012                                      ..Respondents/opp.parties

 

Counsel for Appellant/complainant     :M/s K.P.Kiran Rao

1^st Respondent/1^st opposite party      : served called absent

Counsel for 2^nd and 3^rd Respondents/opp.parties  : M/s P.D.Adikesavalu

 

This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 12.3.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides, and upon perusing the material records, this commission made the following order.  

                            ORDER

THIRU.J. JAYARAM,     JUDICIAL MEMBER 

 

1.        This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum in C.C.501/2010 dated 30.3.2012, dismissing the complaint.

2.      The case of the complainant is that he invested in the Reliance Growth Fund - Retail Plan – Growth Plan (Scheme of Reliance Mutual Fund) with the 1^st opposite party and as per the terms and conditions, the complainant should pay monthly installment of Rs. 1000/- for 36 months through Systematic Investment Plan (SIP) and the mode of payment is through the services of ECS by the 1^st opposite party with the State Bank of India branch where the complainant was having account and one ECS mandate was provided to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant. While so the EMIs for the months of 01/2009 to 03/2009 were not accounted for by the 1^st opposite party, though he was having sufficient funds in his saving plus account. Since the SIP installments for the months of January, February and March 2009 of the complainant were dishonoured by the concerned Bank/ State Bank of India, and the ECS mandates for payment were rejected for January 2009 to March 2009, the insurance cover prescribed under the plan lapsed When he contacted the opposite parties he came to know the reason for rejection of the mandate as, “Payment failed  because of  insufficient funds and payment failed because of no such account”  and consequently the insurance cover provided under the scheme lapsed. All these amount to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite parties 1 to 3.

3.      According to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant joined the scheme under Systematic Investment Plan(SIP) on 8.8.2008 the mode of payment being  through ECS mandate, for which the ECS user/1^st opposite party had to collect an authorized ECS mandate with the concerned bank for raising such debit and the units were allotted to the complainant on 12.1.2009, 10.2.2009 and 12.3.2009 pending clearance of SIP installments from the complainant’s bank. But the SIP installments for the months of January, February and March 2009 of the complainant were dishonoured by his bank and consequently the insurance cover provided under the above plan lapsed as per the terms and conditions, since the SIP installments for two consecutive months were not received from the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.

4.         According  to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties, the complainant had a   saving plus account with State Bank of India, Thudiyalur which was subsequently transferred to the Nanjundapuram Branch/2^nd opposite party and again transferred to Ram Nagar Branch /3^rd opposite party.

5.        The ECS user/1^st opposite party had to collect ECS mandate endorsed by the bank. In the present case, the complainant failed to intimate the 1^st opposite party regarding the transfer of his account from Thudiyalur Branch to 2^nd opposite party’s branch and therefrom to the 3^rd opposite party branch. Every branch has its own MICR Number and whenever the account is transferred from one branch to another, the complainant is bound to intimate the MICR Code Number to the 1^st opposite party for proper clearance. Since the complainant did not take steps to intimate the MICR Code Number to the 1^st opposite party on transfer of his account from one branch to another and hence the cheques were returned for non-payment on 10.1.2009, 10.2.2009 and 10.3.2009, since the account was closed in the concerned bank on transfer to another bank and the ECS became functionless.

6.        Further the complainant ought to have maintained the minimum balance of Rs.5000/- as per the arrangements with the bank. On these three occasions, there were no sufficient funds to honour the ECS mandate. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

7.         The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint, holding that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties.   

8.          Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has preferred this appeal.

10.           The contention of the complainant/Appellant is that the District Forum failed to consider the fact that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice by not accounting for the EMIs for the month of January 2009 to March 2009, inspite of having sufficient balance in his account as a result of which the insurance cover provided to the complainant lapsed/ceased.  

11.             Admittedly the complainant had his SBI account with Thudiyalur Branch of the State Bank of India when ECS mandate was given to the  1^st opposite party to collect the monthly installments of Rs.1000/- from the bank. But suddenly the complainant  transferred his account to the 2^nd opposite party (Nanjundapuram branch) and therefrom to the 3^rd opposite party (Ramnagar branch) and the complainant failed to intimate the fact to the 1^st opposite party about the transfer of his account and so the 1^st opposite party could not send the ECS mandate to the concerned branch. The complainant did not contact the 1^st opposite party and he did not intimate the transfer of his account to the other branch and to send the ECS mandate to the present branch. Therefore the ECS mandates were rejected by the concerned bank. Therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service of the opposite parties in this regard.

12.      We have to further note that the complainant was having saving plus account for which there is a condition that the complainant must maintain the minimum balance of Rs.5000/-. As pointed out by the District Forum in its order, perusal of Ex.A.3, Bank statement,  revealed that he was not having  the minimum balance of Rs.5000/- and there was no sufficient fund to honour the ECS  mandates. Therefore the ECS mandates were rejected for valid reasons and the fault is on the part of the complainant.  The complainant has not established that there were sufficient funds in his account over and above the prescribed minimum amount of Rs. 5000/- to honour the ECS mandates. Therefore there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in this regard.

13.       For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

14.          The District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint and there is no infirmity in the order and we agree with the finding and decision of the District Forum in dismissing the complaint.   

15.        There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order of the District Forum, dismissing the complaint.

         No order as to costs in the appeal.  

 

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                           J. JAYARAM                         R.REGUPATHI

         MEMBER                            JUDICIAL MEMBER                  PRESIDENT