State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered ... vs E.Vijay Anand, S/O.Aranga Elangovan, ... on 28 December, 2011
THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI (BENCH II) Present: Thiru.A.K.Annamalai, M.A., M.L., M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member, Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., Member. F.A.No.288/2010 [Against order in C.C.No.51/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (North)] WEDNESDAY, THE 28th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011. 1. The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai, Parrys Corner, Chennai. 2. The Customer Service, Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Rajaji Salai, Parrys Corner, Chennai. .. Appellants/Opposite parties /Vs/ E.Vijay Anand, S/o.Aranga Elangovan, 70, Gandhi Street, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District. .. Respondent/Complainant The appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 24.11.2011, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and perused the documents, written submissions as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order :- Counsel for Appellants/Opposite parties : M/s. N.V.S. Associates, Advocates. Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : M/s. J. Ravikumar, Advocate. ORDER
A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The Complainant having savings bank account with the opposite parties bank provided with ATM card and while he was maintaining minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in his account, on 30.1.05 when the complainant wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- through ATM centre at Royapettah and after inserting the card the machine displayed that amount was frozen and asked to contact the bank for further enquiry and on enquiry he was informed that his account was become dormant because of non operation of the same for more than two years. But actually and on 31.1.2005 he was asked to deposit Rs.10,000/- to activate the account and thereby his total balance was Rs.31,839/- again on 1.2.2005 when the complainant issued a self cheque for Rs.31,800.39 the same was returned for the reason restricted account. Hence after sending a legal notice complainant filed this consumer complaint claiming Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and for costs.
3. The opposite party contended in their written version that since his account was declared dormant self cheque issued was returned by stating restricted account and the account will be reactivated only if the account holder initiates by depositing manual cash at the home branch or the amount should be with drawn through the self bearer cheque at the home branch and when the cheque returned memo received the account holder must visit to any branch convenient to him and to effect cash or cheque withdrawal with necessary photo identity and signature and address proof. Since the complainant not used the debit card for two years his account was declared as dormant on 31st December 2004 and subsequent deposits are admitted and the transactions of returned cheque for Rs.31,800/- was for signature mismatch and restricted account. Hence there is no deficiency on their part.
4. Based on both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- as costs.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the appellants/opposite parties have come forward with this appeal by contending that there is no deficiency on their part and the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the safeguard measures taken by the opposite parties.
6. While considering both sides averments, contentions and arguments it is not in dispute that the complainant was having savings bank account with ATM card provision with the opposite parties bank and on 30.1.05 when he wanted to withdraw a sum of Rs.5,000/- from ATM Centre it was not materialized because of frozen account and thereafter even on deposit on Rs.10,000/- to activate on 14.12.2005 at home branch and on 31.1.05 Rs.10,000/- were deposited as instructed by the opposite party and thereby having balance of Rs.31,800.39 as on 31.1.05, the cheque issued for Rs.31,800.39 was returned for the reason of mismatch and restricted account. After frozing of the account for the alleged non operation for more than two years as per the instruction of the opposite parties the complainant deposited Rs.10,000/- at the home branch on 31.1.05 and thereafter he issued a cheque dated 1.2.2005 at the home branch as bearer self cheque which was also returned as restricted account and signature mismanagement as per Exhibit B1 to B11 which clearly goes to show the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party because even as on 31.1.2005 when the balance is available as Rs.31,800.39 after deposit of Rs.10,000/- at home branch for the cheque issued for that amount apart from making return endorsement for mismatch of signature but also for restricted account which cannot be done since the complainant already activated the account by depositing Rs.10,000/- and made the account phone operative even as per the contentions of the opposite parties and in those circumstances the District Forum came to the conclusion properly in this regard by giving a finding that the opposite parties are in deficiency of service in this regard.
7. While considering the quantum of compensation is concerned the District Forum awarded Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.5,000/- as costs without assigning any acceptable reason with which we are not in agreement. Hence we are of the view that the compensation and cost to be reduced considerably by considering the facts and circumstances of the case and accordingly we are of the view that it could be reduced to Rs.20,000/- and Rs.3,000/- respectively and thereby the appeal to be allowed for that purpose alone to that extent.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by modifying the order of the District Forum as follows :- (a) The order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- as costs to the complainant is hereby set aside. (b) The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay jointly and severally only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs to the complainant.
(c) The amount shall be payable within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till date of payment. (d) No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM A.K.ANNAMALAI, MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER INDEX : YES / NO sg/B-II/aka/Bank