Abn amro bank

**Advocate.sonia** · 09-02-2009, 11:40 AM

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027

S.C. CASE NO. : 47/0/2006

DATE OF FILING : 20.12.2006 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.03.2009

COMPLAINANT

Sri Biswajit Seal

9, Swami Swarupunanda Sarani

Kolkata-700 079

West Bengal.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. ABN AMRO BANK N.V.

2. MANAGER, ABN AMRO BANK N.V.

Both of Azimganj House

7, Camac Street, Koklkata-700 017.

BEFORE : MEMBER : MR. P.K.CHATTOPADHYAY

MEMBER : MR. S.COARI

FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. B.Prasad, Ld. Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: Mr. P.Banerjee, Ld. Advocate

: O R D E R :

MR. S.COARI, LD. MEMBER

The present petition of complaint has been filed by one Biswajit Seal, the complainant, against the OP Nos. 1 & 2 being ABN AMRO BANK N.V. and the Manager of the said Bank for compensation to the tune of Rs. 29,77,777/-.

The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant is engaged in export-import business having Savings Bank with the OP-Bank since long. On the 8th January, 2005 the complainant drew a cheque amounting to Rs. 2,211/- in favour of G.E.Countrywide, which is a company. But to the utter surprise of the complainant the cheque got bounced. Subsequently from the Bank’s statement it could be ascertain that the cheque was returned due to insufficient fund in the Savings Bank account of the complainant. But the actual position of the Bank balance never reconciled this aspect of the case inasmuch as though on the relevant date the Savings Bank account of the complainant revealed sufficient bank balance, but for best reasons known to the Ops the cheque was not honoured though charges for clearance of the cheque was debited from the Savings Bank account of the complainant. Thereafter on different dates the cheques issued by the complainant in connection with various business deals were not honoured on the ground of insufficient funds. It is the specific case of the complainant that though the complainant had sufficient funds in his Savings Bank account, for reasons best known to the Ops the cheques were not honoured, which tantamounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Bank. Besides that, according to the complainant, without any rhyme or reason and without any prior notice the OP-Bank debited an amount of Rs. 87,401/- from the Savings Bank account of the complainant on two occasions on 2.6.05 and 29,8.05 for recovery of loan in respect of loan account of the complainant which was also with the OP Bank. According to the complainant, this arbitrary act on the part of the OP-Bank tantamounts to gross irregularity of banking system. It is the further case of the complainant that all these factors have affected the credibility of the complainant in the business world and it has gone to such extent that a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- was even not sanctioned in favour of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has been compelled to file the present complainant case after observing all the legal formalities for monetary compensation as mentioned above.

The OP-Bank is contesting the case by filing written objection thereby denying all the material averments of the complaint petition contending inter alia that the complaint case is not maintainable. The complaint has been filed on all false and fictitious grounds and after suppressing material facts the complainant obtained Auto-loan from the OP in respect of a vehicle namely Hyundai Saloon car, which was hypothecated by the OP-Bank. The Bank after observing all the legal formalities has debited the S.B.Account of the complainant towards payment of Auto-loan of the complainant. There was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the Bank in this respect. The claim of the complainant has been preferred on all false and fictitious grounds and the same is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case.

1) Was there any negligence and/or deficiency in service at the instance of the OP as claimed by the complainant?

2) It is the complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the complainant that there is no denial of the fact that the complainant has a Savings Bank account with the OP-Bank since long and that it is a matter of record that the Bank has debited the Savings Bank account without prior intimation or notice to the complainant towards satisfying the Auto-loan installments. According to the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, it was an improper conduct without any justification on the part of the OP-Bank in not honouring different cheques issued by the complainant, which tantamounts to deficiency in service at the instance of the OP-Bank. It has been emphatically submitted before us that the OP has taken a plea to the effect that the Auto-loan Agreement constitutes a clause of set off and lien, but the same has not been substantiated by the OP. The whimsical and arbitrary action on the part of the OP-Bank has practically affected the business of the complainant and as such, the complainant has suffered huge financial loss. Due to all these factors the complainant’s attempt to obtain loan facilities from the Bank was negated due to low re-payment profile of the complainant and ultimately the complainant’s prayer for loan was rejected. While concluding his submission the Ld. Advocate for the complainant has submitted before us that on the face of the record it would be evident that the OP-Bank has acted arbitrarily and without any justification in siphoning the cash from the Savings Bank account of the complainant to the Loan Account or that there was no justification in not honouring different cheques issued by the complainant on the fictitious and non-existent ground of insufficient fund. According to the Ld. Advocate, all these misdeeds of the OP tantamounts to deficiency in service and the complainant should be adequately compensated for this purpose in terms of the prayer of the petition of complaint.

We have duly considered the submissions put forward on behalf of the complainant in this regard and have gone through the materials on record and the WNA and find that it is an admitted position that the complainant has a Savings Bank account with the OP Bank and that at the same time the complainant has also an Auto Loan Account with the concerned Bank. Now, from the written objection of the OP we find that the same is annexed with the Loan Agreement in respect of the Auto Loan Account of the complainant and from Clause 18 of the said Loan Agreement we find that it provides for set-off and lien in favour of the Bank. If that be the position, we are afraid that the allegation put forward at the instance of the complainant against the OP so far as it relates to debiting the Savings Bank account of the complainant to the Loan Account does not hold much water at all. When the complainant has entered into an agreement at the time of securing Auto Loan from the OP-Bank, which consists of a clause of set-off and lien, we are of considered opinion that the OP-Bank has not caused any deficiency in service while debiting the Savings Bank account of the complainant for satisfying the Auto Loan Account, when it was an admitted position that the complainant was a defaulter in respect of the Auto loan Account. Considering the present matter in the light of above observation we do not find any merit in the present complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. Both the points are accordingly disposed of. In the result, the petition of complaint fails.

Hence, ORDERED that the petition of complaint stands dismissed without any order as to cost.

MEMBER MEMBER

**adv.sumit** · 10-14-2009, 11:51 AM

R. Gunasekaran

S/o. S. Ramakrishnan

9E/16, Balasubramanian Nagar,

Peelamedu, Coimbatore – 641 004. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. ABN AMRO Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

TVH Belicia Buildings

2nd Floor, 2nd Phase,

No. 94, MRC Nagar,

Santhome, Chennai – 600 028.

2. PARADUGN CIBSYKTABTS

Rep. by its Manager

No. 33, Sarojini Street,

Radhakrishnan Towers,

Flat “F” Ground Floor,

Ram Nagar, Coimbatore – 641 009.

3. ABT MARUTHI

Rep. by its Manager

69, Arokiyasamy Road,(West)

R.S. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002. --- Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 5.10.09 in the presence of Thiru.P.M. Sheela Advocate for complainant and of Thiru V.A.Krishnakumar, advocate for 3rd opposite party and the opposite parties 1 and 2 remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to return the original registration certificate of the car to the complainant, to issue no objection certificate to the concerned authorities, to return the bounced cheques to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- being the compensation for mental worries and sufferings and to pay costs.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is doing cotton business. The complainant purchased a Maruthi Suzuki Alto spin car LXI model through 3rd opposite party the car dealer ABT. Maruthi, Coimbatore during October 2004. The finance was availed from the 1st opposite party for the purchase of the said car. The Chassis Number is 434359 and Engine Number is 3131576. The Registration Number is TN 37 AJ 1467. The colour of the vehicle is superior white. The 2nd opposite party is the Representative and collection agent of the 1st opposite party. The cost of the car was Rs.2,89,779/- The loan amount of Rs.2,02,500/- must be paid by the complainant in 36 installments at the rate of 11% interest. The car loan account No is 9156396, customer relationship No. 1164396.

2. At the time of delivery of the car by the 3rd opposite party ABT Maruthi, they gave the duplicate copy of the Registration Certificate to the complainant and the original Registration certificate of vehicle was handed over to the 1st opposite party representative. The 3rd opposite party sent a letter also to the complainant on 1.12.2004. The 3rd opposite party mentioned in the letter that the original RC is handed over to the 1st opposite party. The complainant repaid the entire loan amount with interest to the 1st opposite party through the 2nd opposite party.

3. After settlement of the above installment there was no response from 1st opposite party, so the complainant enquired through phone (help line 92820-21111) with the 1st opposite party. After clearing the above dues the complainant did not receive any intimation from the 1st opposite party. After a great difficulty the complainant got the no objection letter from 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party sent a letter to the complainant on 14.07.08, stating that the loan has been completely repaid on 12.07.08, along with No objection certificate to RTA, MV form 35 to RTO, Letter to insurance company.

4. The 1st opposite party did not return the Original Registration Certificate to the complainant, so the complainant sent a letter to the 1st opposite party customer service executive on 9.09.08 requesting the 1st opposite party to send the Original Registration Certificate of the complainant’s Car bearing No. TN 37 AJ 1467. The 1st opposite party did not reply for the letter. Again on 17.10.08 he sent a letter to the 1st opposite party requesting the 1st opposite party to send the original Registration Certificate. The 1st opposite party did not reply for this letter also. The complainant several times visited the 2nd opposite party office and asked to return the original R.C. Book. The 2nd opposite party replied each time that they will intimate the 1st opposite party and asked the complainant to wait for some time.

5. The citizen’s voice club issued a letter dated 30.12.08 which was sent to the 1st opposite party on 7.01.09 mentioning to return the original registration certificate of the vehicle to the complainant. There is no reply from the 1st opposite party for this letter. The 3rd opposite party replied that they handed over to the 1st opposite party and they will get it from 1st opposite party and give it to the complainant. So far the complainant has not received the RC book and insurance policy. Hence this complaint.

The averments in the counter of 3rd opposite party is as follows:

6. The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious and not maintainable either in law or on facts. As per the terms of the contract between purchaser and the financier, the opposite party handed over the original RC book and insurance policy to the financier on 17.12.2004 under acknowledgement.

7. The complainant and 3rd opposite party have filed Proof Affidavits along with documents Ex.A1 to A15 was marked and Ex.B1 to B3 was marked on the side of the 3rd opposite party and the 1st and 2nd opposite parties were remained absent and set exparte.

The point for consideration is

Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1

8. The case of the complainant is that he has purchased a Maruthi Suzuki Alto spin car availing a loan of Rs.2,02,500 from the 1st opposite party and paid all 36 instalments but even after clearing the above dues the first opposite party did not return the original registration certificates and other certificates like NOC etc. Hence this complaint.

9. The case of the 3rd opposite party is that as per the terms and contract between the parties the original RC book and insurance policy was handed over to the financer on 17.12.2004 under acknowledgement.

10. At the time of argument the complainant made an endorsement in the complaint exonerating the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has filed 3 documents. Ex.B2 is the letter written by the 1st opposite party on 10.12.2004 to the 3rd opposite party instructing to hand over the original RC book and insurance policy to one Vasudevan representative of AMRO Bank. Ex.B3 is the copy of delivery book containing the acknowledgement for receiving the Original RC book and insurance policy by the 1st opposite party.

As per the above documents, the 1st opposite party has received the RC book as well as insurance policy from the 3rd opposite party on 17.12.2004. So the above said RC book and insurance policy is in the hands of the 1st opposite party. Till date the 1st opposite party neither replied nor returned original Registration Certificate and insurance policy of the complainant’s car. The act of the opposite parties No.1 & 2 amounts to deficiency in service and this causes mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief from the opposite parties 1 and 2.

11. In the result, we direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the original Registration Certificate of Car Maruti Alto bearing No.TN 37AJ 1467 to the complainant and direct the opposite party No.1 to issue no objection certificate to the RTO, Bank Manager and Insurance Manager, direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to return the bounced cheques to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.20,000 as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of Rs.1000 to the complainant within two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Since the 3rd opposite party is exonerated and the complaint against 3rd opposite party is dismissed.

Abn amro bank

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Rate This Thread

Display

Abn amro bank

ABN AMRO Bank

Similar Threads

ABN Amro Bank

ABN AMRO BANK noida branch--ATTEMPT TO FRAUD BY BANK TO ME

ABN AMRO Bank

ABN Amro bank

Abn amro bank

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions