D.O.F:15/12/2016

D.O.O:21/04/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

CC.No.314/2016                                                                                                                                                

Dated this, the 21^th  day of April 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                        : PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M: MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Khadeeja, K.A W/o. Abdulla Kunhi,                          : Complainant                     

R/at Aysha Manzil, Aalampady.P.O,

Muttathody Village, Kasaragod.Dt.

(Adv.Zakeer Ahamed, Kasaragod)

                                                       And

The Manager, Canara bank,                           

 Misriya Complex, MG Road, Kasaragod. 671121

 (Adv.K.Sadananda Kamath, Kasaragod)

The Service Manager,                                     : Opposite parties

Bussan Auto Finance India Pvt. Ltd,

Arumic Chamber, 2^nd floor, Mamangalam,

Edappally South, Kochi. 682025

(Adv. M.Mohanan Nambiar, Kasaragod)

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT

     The complaint filed under section 12 of consumer Protection Act 1986.

     The complainants case in short is that she is an account holder with Opposite Party No:1 bank.  Her account particulars shows entry cheque No: 359988 is found encashed on 09/05/2015 and 18/05/2015.  Complainant availed vehicle loan from Opposite Party No:2, it was closed on 30/01/2014.  There is deficiency in encashing amount as above.  Hence she claims reliefs directing Opposite Party No:1 to correct entries in pass book, and to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and also cost of litigation.

2.     The Opposite Party No:1 filed their written version.  Opposite Party No:1 bank contents that cheques are cleared in Mumbai, due to technical error cheque amount was debited twice and realizing mistake, amount is re-credited on 13/04/2016 itself.  Thus there is no deficiency in service and not entitled for any reliefs.

3.     The Opposite Party No: 2 filed its version denying any deficiency in service or negligence on their part and complainant is bad for misjoinder of parties.

4.     Complainant filed chief affidavit Ext A1 to A4 marked by complainant.  Ext A1 is the bank pass book.  Ext A2 is copy of statement of account, Ext A3 copy of no objection certificate.  Ext A4 is copy of notice.

5.  The Opposite Party No: 1 filed chief affidavit and a new case is pleaded in chief affidavit that she should checked entries of payment and so there is omission by complainant itself.

     As per rival contentions raised by the parties following points arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party?

Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation and if so for what reliefs?

 5.     In the version Opposite Party No: 1 admits debit of amounts twice of the very same cheque.  But explanation is that it is mistaken entry due to computer generated accounts management.   On realizing the mistakenly debited amount is re-credited on 13/11/2016 itself.  So bank is not liable to pay any compensation to complaint.

     Consumer Protection Act is enacted to help the Consumer to get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services.

    During the proceedings, the Opposite Party bank maintained that the complainants transaction was by error due to computer generated bank transfer and as and when it is noticed amount is re-credited and thus there is no deficiency in service.  It is true that the complainant received the said amount by subsequent credit.

     The technical problem, which the bank claims for wrong debiting, of the complainants amount, fairly warranted that bank is negligent in thus service.

    The very fact that amount was debited to the account of the complainant twice on the very same cheque shows that there was technical problem with the bank.  There is deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No: 1 in providing services to the complainant.  No documentary evidence produced by the bank to prove their case and if, the banks made such entries in the accounts of the consumers there will be no end of disputes between and the banks.  The act of Opposite Party No:1 to make entries of debit and credit again and again in the account of the complainant is gross negligence on the part of the officials of the bank and unfair trade practice on their part.  District Consumer Redressal Commission hereby finds that sum of Rs. 25,000/- is found reasonable compensation payable by Opposite Party No: 1 Manager Canara Bank Kasaragod to pay compensation and litigation cost Rs. 5000/- thus Rs. 30,000/- to its customer complainant for debiting his account twice.

     Thus complaint is allowed in part directing Opposite Party No:1 bank to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) for mental agony and inconveniences and further pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as cost of the litigation within 30 days of the receipt of the order, failing which the complainant shall be entitled to interest to interest at 8% per annum.  Opposite Party No:2 is absolved of any liability.

      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Bank pass book

A2- copy of statement of account

A3- copy of no objection certificate

A4- copy of notice

Witness Examined

Pw1- Khadeeja.K.A

       Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                          PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/