STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :

                                           At  HYDERABAD

                                                      FA 71 of 2015

                                                   AGAINST

                 CC No. 168 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM I, HYDERABAD

Between :

Durga Prasad Mittiredi,

S/o Satyanarayana,

H.No. 3-1-5/9, Sri Lakshmi Nagar colony,

Attapur, Hyderabad – 500 048,.                   .. Appellant/complainant

And

The Branch Manager,

Standard Chartered Bank,

#6-3-1090, Raj Bhavan road,

Hyderabad – 500 092.                         ..        Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant                  :   Sri J. P. Rao

Counsel for the Respondent               :    M/s. Lotus Law Associates

Coram                :

                 Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla         …      President

                                           And

                          Sri Patil Vithal Rao              …      Member

                          Monday, the Second Day of April

                                  Two Thousand Eighteen

Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )

                                                            ***

1)       This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant  praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 19/03/2015  made in CC  168 of 2013  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad.

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.

3).      The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is corporate salary account holder of the opposite party Bank since 2005.  An amount of Rs.20,634/- was credited  in his account in the month of March, 2012.  The opposite party withdrew a sum of Rs.18,199.50 ps without his knowledge. He served legal notice dated 14.08.2012 to remit back the amount and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-towards compensation for mental agony.  While admitting the deduction of the said amount towards Account maintenance charges and dormant account charges as per schedule of service charges vide letter dated 15.10.2012 and reversed it in the month of October, 2012, but, failed to pay compensation, which, amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint to direct the opposite party Bank to pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.

4).      The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version, while admitting that the complainant is their Account holder bearing No. 44610278986 and deduction of Rs.18,199.50 ps from his account, contending that there has been no Salary credits in his account from December, 2007 to February, 2012  and hence his account had been reclassified as a normal savings account in the year 2009. Consequently, charges had been levied for non-adherence of the account maintenance charges for the quarter of 2009, 2010 and 2011 and the first quarter of 2012 and debited the said amount from his account. Neither his  employer nor the complainant intimated to them for cessation of salary credits for the period from December, 2007 to February, 2012 to avoid service charges.  However, on his representation, the opposite parties reversed the same. Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5).      During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his  case, the  complainant filed his   evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1  to A3. whereas, the opposite party filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B2 to B 6. Both sides filed their respective written arguments.

6)       The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, held and directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/- within 30 days.

7)       Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant   preferred this appeal before this Commission.

8).      Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard.

09)     The points that arise for consideration are,

(i)       Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?

(ii)      To what relief ?

10).   Point No. 1 :

There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant is the Account holder bearing Account No. 44610278986 of the respondent Bank by virtue of his employment.  There is no dispute that an amount of  Rs.18,199.50 ps was deducted from the salary of the appellant/complainant. 

11).    The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the said amount was deducted from his account without his knowledge and when he protested,  the same was reversed and hence there is deficiency in service  on the part of the respondent Bank and claimed compensation for mental agony.  On the other hand, the respondent Bank rebutted the same contending that the complainant did not operate his account from December, 2007 to February, 2012, the said fact was not informed either by the appellant/complainant or his employer and that is the reason why his  account was reclassified as a normal Savings Account and hence levied service charges. Further, on the representation of the appellant/complainant, the said amount was reversed subsequently in the month of  October, 2012.   Though, it was not contradicted by the appellant, he claims for enhancement of compensation for mental agony.

12).    The District Forum awarded Rs.3,000/- towards compensation for mental agony  on the ground the respondent Bank deducted the sum of Rs.18,199.50 p from the account of the appellant without prior notice and he could not be able to use the said amount for six months from March, 2012 to October, 2012,  which amounts to deficiency in service.

13).    Counsel for the appellant/complainant argued that the Forum below though collected fee for Rs.50,000/- while granting the reliefs are not following any yardstick  or rationalization. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent Bank relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between State Bank of India Vs. A.G. I. Switches, reported in 1999 CPR 2-38, wherein, it was held that the complainant did not lead any evidence or had laid any factual foundation to establish the actual loss caused in his business or expected future loss of business. In the case on hand, the appellant did not lead any evidence that he sustained loss of Rs.50,000/-. It is the discretion of the Court to award quantum of amount towards compensation basing on  the facts and circumstances. If the amount of Rs.18,199.50 was not deducted from  the Account of the appellant, for six months, he will not get interest more than Rs.3,000/-,    which was awarded by the District Forum. We do not see any illegality in the impugned order.

14).              After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides,   this Commission is of the view that there are no merits in the appeal.

15).    Point No. 2 :

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 19/03/2015 made in CC 168 of 2013  on the file of the  DISTRICT FORUM -1, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs. Time  for compliance four weeks.

                                                            PRESIDENT                     MEMBER                                                                           Dated : 02.04.2018.