DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

Complaint No.690/16.11.2007.

Date of order: 19.3.2009.



Vinod Verma son of Sh.Joginder Pal, resident of 83, 84, Panchsheel Colony, Street No.3, Noorwala Road, Ludhiana.

(Complainant)

Vs.



ICICI Bank Ltd. Sunder Nagar, Atam Towers, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.

(Opposite party)



Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

….



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present:

Sh. J.S. Jagdev Advocate for the complainant.

Sh. Alok Mohindra Advocate for opposite party.



O R D E R

T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1. Complainant opened saving bank account no.036301503847. He was issued ATM card and cheque book. But ATM card was never activated. Complainant claimed that he issued cheque dated 24.9.2007 for Rs.20,000/- from his said account in the name of Sh. Gursewak Singh. But to is dismay and shock, opposite party dishonoured the cheque dated 24.9.2007 with remarks “account closed”. Sh. Gurpreet Singh feel offended on dishonouring the cheque and complainant pacified him by paying Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs.20,000/-to avoid action under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act. Opposite party of their own, without any instructions from the complainant, closed his account and issued him pay order dated 28.9.2007 for Rs.99,905/- without assigning any reason. Opposite party failed to advance any reason why they closed his account and refused to honour his cheque despite having sufficient funds in the account. Such act of the opposite party is claimed amounting to deficiency in service by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He has sought compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- with 24% interest per annum.

2. Opposite party in defence pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Rather accused the complainant for not co-operating with them by completing the requirements of the bank and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. However, conceded that complainant had opened an account by deposited Rs.1,00,000/-with the opposite party. But he failed to complete all the formalities as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Complainant was called number of times to remove the discrepancies to meet with the requirements of the bank and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. But he failed to co-operate with the bank. Due to said attitude of non completion of requirements, they were left with no other alternative except to make account of the complainant inoperative. As account of the complainant was inoperative, so, cheque was returned uncashed. Even thereafter the complainant did not complete the required formalities. There were discrepancies in account opening documents signed by the complainant. Hence, his account could not be made operative.

3. In order to prove their versions, both the parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents.

4. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file and scanned the documents and other material on record.

5. It is admitted that complainant opened saving bank account with the opposite party by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.9.2007 as evidenced by receipt Ex.C.1. Also it is fact that the complainant had issued the cheque for Rs.20,000/- on 24.9.2007 (Ex.C.6) in favour of one Gursewak Singh. But that cheque was dishonoured by the opposite party vide document Ex.C.5 dated 4.10.2007 with the reason that account was closed. Also it is fact that after closing account of the complainant, a sum of Rs.99,905/- was paid by opposite party-bank to the complainant vide banker’s cheque Ex.C.3 which was encashed by the complainant by depositing in his HDFC bank account on 3.10.2007 (Ex.C.2).

6. According to the opposite party, after opening bank account by the complainant, they were forced to close the same as his signatures mismatched with tariff guide. Due to that reason pay order for the Account Closure Proceeds amounting to Rs.99,905/- was handed over to the complainant as mentioned in certificate Ex.R.1. So, it means account was closed and amount was refunded to the complainant after deducting Rs.95- as expenses. Affidavit Ex. RW1/A of Sh. Amit Kumar authorised signatory of opposite party states that complainant himself was guilty for not co-operating with the bank and not completing requirements of the bank as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Complainant was called upon number of times to remove the discrepancies, so that requirements of the bank, guidelines of Reserve bank of India can be met but he failed to co-operate. Due to such reason and non co-operation, they were left with no alternative but to make the account inoperative.

7. This stand of the opposite party need to be considered in the light of material on record. No doubt, account was opened on 11.9.2007 by depositing Rs.1,00,000/- by the complainant. This account was closed by the opposite party by issuing pay order Ex.C.3, which pay order was got encashed by the complainant on 3.10.2007, by depositing in his account of HDFC bank. Prior to closure of the account, complainant had issued cheque Ex.C.6 dated 24.9.2007 for Rs.20,000/- in favour of Sh. Gursewak Singh. That cheque was dishonoured by opposite party on 4.10.2007 vide endorsement Ex.C.5 on the ground “account closed”. When the complainant had drawn amount of the pay order to his saving fund account, he should have intimated Sh. Gursewak Singh not to present the cheque of Rs.20,000/- as his account was closed. Naturally, after closure of the account, cheque was bound to be dishonoured. By dishonouring the same, opposite party can not be blamed for not rendering proper services to its own consumer.

8. In these circumstances, we can not ignore plea of the opposite party that complainant failed to complete certain formalities in compliance with requirements of the bank as well as guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, despite repeated requests, so, his account was closed. By doing so, we can not as such construe opposite party, guilty of rendering not proper services. Having no merit, the complaint is dismissed. We leave the parties to bear their own costs. Copy of the order be provided to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned to record.



Announced

Dated 19.3.2009 T.N. Vaidya, President