First Appeal No.112 of 2011

2nd February, 2015.

Petitioner Counsel: Ms. SHAILA PANDEY
Respondent Counsel: Mr. S. HUSSAIN

JUDGMENT

Mr. P. B. JOSHI, Hon'ble Member :- Being aggrieved by the order in Consumer Complaint Nos.517/2006 passed by the District consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai Suburban, the present appeal has been preferred by the Complainant.

2. Facts necessary for deciding this appeal are as under:

Complainant is a customer of opponent no.1 Bank having his different accounts with the opponent No.1. As per the complainant Rs.60,000/- were illegally debited from his account and credited in the Account No.2592 of Ms.Sangeeta Gawa. When complainant noticed it, letter was sent by the complainant to opponent no.1. But, there was no reply by opponents. Then Complainant wrote letter to Reserve Bank of India. Thereafter, the opponent gave reply of the letter of the complainant and mentioned that as per the telephonic instructions of the complainant the amount was transferred. The complainant has denied any such instructions were given and asked the complainant to credit the amount. As the opponents did not give credit the consumer complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponents and prayed that the amount of Rs.2,15,000/- be given by opponents to the complainant. Complainant also prayed for interest @24% per annum on Rs.60,000/- from the date of complaint till realization.

3. Considering the pleadings, evidence and rival contentions of the parties the Ld.District Forum dismissed the complainant. Against that order the present appeal has been preferred by the complainant.

4. We heard Ld.Counsels for the parties.

5. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, record and submissions made before us following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted against them for the reasons given below:

Points	Findings
(i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opponents while dealing with the amount of the complainant?	Yes.
(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the amount claimed? If yes, what quantum?	Yes. As per order.
(iii) What order?	As per order below.

Reasons:

6. From the record and submissions made before us, it is clear that complainant is having different accounts with the opponent no.1. The amount of Rs.60,000/- was transferred by opponent no.1from the account of complainant to the Account no.2592 of Saraswati Associates. Ms.Sangeeta Gawa was proprietress of the said associates. Ld.Advocate for the complainant submitted that the said amount was illegally transferred by opponents from the account of complainant and hence, there is deficiency in service. Advocate for opponents stated that said amount was transferred as per telephonic instructions given by the complainant. Thus, it is clear that there is no document on record to show that complainant had given any such instructions in writing or any document authorizing the opponents to transfer the amount from the account of complainant. Opponent no.1 is a Bank and opponent nos.2 and 3 are the employees of the Opponent no.1 Bank. Contention of the opponents that only on telephonic instructions the amount was transferred from the account of complainant cannot be accepted and it is not legally tenable. Thus, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponent in transferring the amount of Rs.60,000/- from the account of complainant Hence, we answer point no.(i) in affirmative.

Point No.(ii):

Point No.(i):

7. In view of answer of point no.(i) in affirmative the complainant is entitled to get an amount Rs.60,000/- which was illegally transferred from the account of complainant to another account. Complainant is also entitled to get interest on the said amount @9% per annum from the date of transfer of the said amount till the amount is credited to the account of the complainant. For getting such relief the complainant was required to knock the door of Consumer Forum and naturally he suffered mental agony and physical harassment because of the said act of the opponents. Hence, we find that the complainant is entitled for some compensation on account of mental agony. We quantify that amount to Rs.25,000/-. Respondent/Complainant is also entitled for the costs of the litigation quantified at Rs.25,000/-. Hence, we answer point no.(ii) accordingly.

Point No.(iii):

8. In view of answer of point nos.(i) and (ii) the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Hence, the order:

ORDER

(i) Appeal is allowed.

(ii) Order passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.517/2006 is hereby set aside.

(iii) Complaint is partly allowed.

(iv) Opponent no.1 is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.60,000/- along with interest @9% per annum from the date when the amount was transferred from the account of the complainant till it is repaid to him.

(v) Opponent is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.

(vi) Opponent no.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as costs of this appeal and the complaint to the complainant and Opponents to bear their own costs.

Appeal allowed.