BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 373/2003 Filed on 22.09.2003
Dated : 15.03.2011
Complainant:
G. Padmanabhan, T.C 37/1128, Thamman Street, Fort, Thiruvananthapuram-695 023.
(By adv. T.K. Ananda Padmanabhan)
Opposite party :
The Manager, ICICI Bank, T.C 25/2491-1, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram-1.
(By adv. R. Kunjukrishnan Potti)
This O.P having been taken as heard on 27.01.2011, the Forum on 15.03.2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Facts of the case are as follows: Complainant is a reputed business man and the opposite party is a Bank. On the repeated requests of the opposite party to open an account with the Bank, the complainant decided to open a Savings Bank Account with the opposite party. Complainant submitted an application on 16.06.2003 by remitting an amount of Rs. 10,000/- by cash. Complainant thereafter was issued a cheque book, ATM Card, PIN Number etc. on the very same day and his SB Account No. is 626201503235. Complainant was informed that his account has become fully operational and he could through his transactions any time. Complainant on the basis of the said assurance made by the opposite party issued a cash cheque to one of his clients for an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The same was presented for collection by his client. But to the utter surprise and dismay of the complainant the client to whom the complainant has issued the cheque informed him that the cheque got dishonoured on account of the reason “the account is not active”. The complainant submits that the above act of the opposite party in making false promises and not activating the account even after a lapse of eight days from the date of opening the account amounts to playing fraud on the public like the complainant and further amounts to clear deficiency in service. Complainant who had an excellent business rapport with the client thereafter received a statutory notice from him threatening appropriate legal action against the complainant for the dishonour of the cheque issued by him. Moreover the complainant lost his business dealings with the said client which in turn affected the reputation of the complainant as a businessman. Complainant has also lost a good customer. The above act of the opposite party in issuing cheque books etc. in favour of the complainant and further giving him wrong information that his account is fully operational amounts to cheating the complainant warranting appropriate legal action against the opposite party. Further on account of the false information made to the complainant he has suffered substantial damage, huge loss, and mental agony which cannot be quantified. Even after the matter being brought to the notice of the opposite party, nothing useful turned out. Moreover the opposite party even hardly cared to tender an apology for his acts resulting in huge loss to the complainant. As such the complainant on 03.07.2003 caused a lawyers notice to the opposite party demanding a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the substantial damage, huge loss and mental agony suffered by him within 15 days from the date of receipt of the notice. The opposite party even after accepting the notice on 05.07.2003 neither cared to reply to the same nor cared to rectify his mistake. The opposite party further started behaving in an unprofessional manner and even challenged the complainant to do whatever he wishes. In the above circumstances the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum.
The opposite party ICICI Bank filed version. In the version opposite party stated that the statement in the complaint that the immediate operation of the account is totally false. The field representative made the complainant believe that the activation of the instant account opening with ATM Card would normally take a week's time to make the account operational. The field representative of the opposite party never assured the complainant that the account will be operational on the day itself. Complainant acted in a hasty mode in operating the account. The complainant without adhering to the request of the field representative or the rules regarding the operation of the ATM card account facility without waiting for the period to get the account operational issued the cheque. The complainant had issued a cheque hastly which was presented at the counter. The cash officer had informed that the account was not active and hence he could not verify the credentials of the cheque. The complainant had approached the opposite party branch and the manager tendered his apologies and agreed to accommodate the customer/complainant. The complainant refused to oblige. There is no ground for alleging fraud upon the opposite party for the mistake committed by the complainant. The complainant has no cause of action for preferring the complaint before the Forum. The complainant is aware of the fact that instant account operating with ATM card would take at least a week's time for processing the application to get the account operational. The alleged notice of dishonour of the cheque mentioned in the complaint is a bogus one to defame the reputation of the opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for.
In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and he has been examined as PW1. From the side of complainant 3 documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P3.
Points to be ascertained:
Whether there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?
Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant has submitted an application to open an account with the opposite party by remitting an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant alleges that on the basis of the assurance given by the opposite party he issued a cash cheque to one of his clients for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- which was presented for collection and the same dishonoured on 24.06.2003 i.e; after a lapse of eight days from the date of opening the account on the reason “the account is not active”. That client issued a lawyer's notice to the complainant for the dishonour of the cheque issued by the complainant. On the basis of that incident the complainant has lost a good customer and thereby he sustained huge loss and mental agony. In the version opposite party stated that the complainant is fully aware of the fact that the instant account operating with ATM card would take at least a week's time for processing the application to get the account operational. The complainant refused to oblige that.
In this case the complainant has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. Ext. P1 is the account card. Ext. P2 is the copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2003 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext. P3 is the postal receipt and acknowledgement card of the notice. In this case the complainant has produced nothing to show what was his grievance due to the non-activation of his account. He stated that he has lost one of his business client due to the dishonour of cheque and thereby caused huge loss. But he has not adduced any evidence to prove that. In the complaint he has stated that client had sent a legal notice against him, but he did not produce that notice. From the documents, evidences and other pleading produced by the complainant, we find that there has been no loss or harm sustained by the complainant in this dealing with the opposite party. At the time of cross examination the complainant admitted that he is still continuing the operation with the opposite party bank. Hence we are of the view that there is no cause of action for filing this complaint. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of March 2011.
Sd/- BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
O.P. No. 373/2003
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :
PW1 - C. Padmanabhan
II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Account card
P2 - Copy of legal notice dated 03.07.2003 issued by the
complainant to opposite party.
P3 - Postal receipt and acknowledgement card
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
