Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/512/2019

Sulinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

Ripan sharma

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFOR THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    512 of 2019.

                                                                   Date of institution:         02.12.2019.

                                                                   Date of decision: 25.07.2022

 

Sulinder Singh s/o Shri Surta Ram, aged about 45 years, r/o village Dhurala, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                    Versus

 

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Mini Secretariat, Panchayat Bhawan, Kurukshetra.
2. Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd., 2^nd Floor, SCO No.44, Geeta Colony, Sector-17, Kurukshetra-136118.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Vikas Sangwan, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Opposite Party No.1 ex-parte, vide order dated 02.03.2020.

                   Shri Shekhar Kapoor, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.2.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having saving bank account No.31187965283 with OP No.1. The complainant after printing his passbook of said account, came to know that OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 illegally deducted the following amount:-    

 

S.No.	Date of deduction	Amount (Rs.)
1	05.03.2019	1356/-
2	05.04.2019	1356/
3	05.05.2019	1356/
4	05.06.2019	1356/
5	05.07.2019	1356/
6	05.08.2019	1356/
7	05.09.2019	1356/
8	05.10.2019	1356/

 

                   After knowing about the illegal deduction of total Rs.10848/-, he immediately approached the OPs, who told that some insurance through Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. was issued in his name, upon which, he told the OPs that he never signed any document of alleged insurance, nor given any instruction in this regard. He requested the OPs not to transfer any funds from his account to OP No.2 and revert back the entire amount illegally transferred to it, but they did not paid any heed to his requests. The above act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP No.2 appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement, whereas, OP No.1 failed to appear before this Commission despite receipt of notice from this Commission and was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte by this Commission on 02.03.2020.

4.                OP No.2, in its written statement stating therein that the complainant himself agreed to avail the insurance by giving his consent to the agent of the OP which is evident from the call recording enclosed, wherein the complainant clearly given the consent and agreed the terms & conditions of the same. The complainant has been an existing customer of the OP and has availed various loans from the OP out of which some are closed and No Objection Certificate has also been issued and few of the other loans are active. The complainant had cleared 9 EMIs through Auto Debit Mandate and Auto Debit Mandate for 10^th EMI returned by the OP No.1 as complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his bank account. Thereafter, on 12.12.2019, the complainant had paid the said EMI in cash along with bouncing charges, which shows that he was fully aware about the deduction of the amount. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

5.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, OP No.2 tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A along with documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 and closed the evidence.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant was having saving bank account with OP No.1. The complainant after printing his passbook of said account, came to know that OP No.1 in connivance with OP No.2 illegally deducted the amount. After knowing about the illegal deduction of total Rs.10848/-, the complainant immediately approached the OPs, who told that some insurance through Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. was issued in his name, upon which, he told the OPs that he never signed any document of alleged insurance, nor given any instruction in this regard. The complainant requested the OPs not to transfer any funds from his account to OP No.2 and revert back the entire amount illegally transferred to it, but they did not paid any heed to his requests.

9.                The learned counsel for OP No.2 has argued that the complainant himself agreed to avail the insurance by giving his consent to the agent of the OP which is evident from the call recording enclosed wherein the complainant clearly given the consent and agreed the terms & conditions of the same. The complainant has been an existing customer of the OP and has availed various loans from the OP out of which some are closed and No Objection Certificate has also been issued and few of the other loans are active. The complainant had cleared 9 EMIs through Auto Debit Mandate and Auto Debit Mandate for 10^th EMI returned by the OP No.1 as complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his bank account. Thereafter, on 12.12.2019, the complainant had paid the said EMI in cash along with bouncing charges, which shows that he was fully aware about the deduction of the amount. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

10.              There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was having saving bank account No.31187965283 with OP No.1 vide copy of Passbook Ex.C-1.

11.              The grievance of the complainant is that after printing his passbook of said bank account, he came to know that OP No.1 bank in connivance with OP No.2, illegally, without his consent or intimation, deducted total amount of Rs.10,848/- from his said account towards some insurance through Bajaj Auto Finance Ltd. vide document Ex.C-1 & Ex.C-2. In this regard, he made representation to OPs not to transfer any funds from his account to OP No.2 and revert back the entire amount illegally transferred to it vide letter dated 01.11.2019 Ex.C-3, but they did not paid any heed to his requests.

12.              On the other hand, OP No.2 contended that earlier agent of OP No.2 had called the complainant and the complainant himself agreed to avail the insurance by giving his consent and agreed the terms & conditions of the same to that agent, as such, Aditya Birla Capital - Group Activ Health Insurance – Individual/Floater Family policy valid from 31.01.2019 to 30.01.2020 for total four persons with sum insured of Rs.5 lacs, total yearly premium amount of Rs.13551/-,  was issued to the complainant vide policy Ex.R-3. To corroborate his above version, OP No.2 produced call recording of complainant with its agent as Ex.R-2 in the form of CD, which was played on the computer of the Commission. After listening the said CD, we found that the agent of OP No.2 called one person namely Salinder (complainant in the present case) on his mobile phone and told that he is old and valuable customer of the OP No.2 and that’s why, OP No.2 are providing the complainant a health insurance policy for him and for his family members. The said agent also told the complainant that a monthly premium amount of Rs.1356/- will be deducted from his loan account for 10 months and after listening the said agent, the complainant gave his consent for the said health insurance policy and thereafter, the said agent transferred the call of complainant to other representative of OP No.2 namely Sunaina, who also verified the family details of the complainant in this regard i.e. date of birth, address etc. So, from the above, it is clear that the complainant was fully aware about issuance of health insurance policy by OP No.2 to him as he himself gave his consent in this regard to the agent of OP No.2.

13.              OP No.2 further contended that the complainant had cleared the 9 EMIs of through Auto Debit Mandate, but 10^th EMI was returned by the OP No.1 as complainant did not maintain sufficient balance in his bank account and the same was paid by the complainant by cash on 12.12.2019, meaning thereby, the complainant was fully aware about the deduction of the amount from his account towards the said insurance policy. To support his contentions, OP No.1 placed on record Loan Statement of Account of complainant on the case file as Ex.R-2 and from perusal of the same, we found that from 05.03.2019 to 05.11.2019, 9 EMIs of Rs.1356/- each were credited from the said account of complainant. However, on 05.12.2019, payment of Rs.1356/- for 10^th EMI were showing received, but on 07.12.2019, showing Bounce Charges for EMI Month Dec 2019 of Rs.150/-, but on 12.12.2019, an amount of Rs.1500/- towards the said EMI, was paid through Cash vide Receipt No.M38363595. From the perusal of contents of above Loan Statement of Account of complainant Ex.R-2, it is clear that nine EMIs each of Rs.1356/- were debited from 05.03.2019 to 05.11.2019 from the account of complainant and last 10^th EMI was bounced on 07.12.2019, but on 12.12.2019, the same EMI of Rs.1356/- + Rs.150/- bounce charges of EMI, total Rs.1500/- was paid/got paid, in cash by the complainant himself. On the one hand, vide letter dated 01.11.2019 Ex.C-3, the complainant had given representation to OPs not to transfer any funds from his account to OP No.2 and revert back the entire amount illegally transferred to OP No.2, whereas, on the other hand, on 12.12.2019, he himself paid/got paid the last 10^th EMI of Rs.1356/- + bounce charges of Rs.1500/-, total Rs.1500/- in cash with the OPs. Therefore, the stand taken by the complainant, is self-contradictory in itself, which raises serious dent to the case of the complainant. It seems that the complainant is contemplating the performance of impossibilities and shooting the arrows in the air.

14.              With these facts & circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations leveled against the OPs in his complaint by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Hence, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the same, with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:25.07.2022.

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.