IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present

Date of appeal filed: 27.05.2016

THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

F.A.No.43/2016

MONDAY, THE 20^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023.

1. The Senior Manager,

Canara Bank,

Palayamkottai Branch,

Tiruchendur Road,

Palayamkottai,

Tirunelveli-2.

2. The General Manager,

Circle Office,

Canara Bank,

St.Mary’s Campus,

Madurai-1. Appellants/Opposite Parties

-Vs-

A.Prammanayagam,

Door No.461/E, V.O.C.Nagar, D.Colony,

V.M.Chatram, Tiruvelveli-11. Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Appellants-1&2/Opposite Parties-1&2 : Mr.P.Kumar, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr.T.Selvam, Advocate.

Aggrieved by the award passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Tirunelveli made in C.C.No.88/2015, dated 06.04.2016 the opposite

parties preferred this appeal. This appeal coming before me for final hearing on

31.10.2023 and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the

following:

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

1.

The Facts:

The complainant one A.Prammanayagam was the customer of the first

opposite party/bank in which he maintained a Savings Bank Account. To his surprise

an amount of Rs.12/-+Rs.12/- was withdrawn without any prior intimation from his

account. Totally Rs.24/- withdrawn and only Rs.12/- was remitted back in his

account by the opposite party/bank. Remaining Rs.12/- was not remitted. When

enquired by the complainant, the officials of the bank informed that it has been

deducted towards insurance premium. Before deduction of such amount no

permission was obtained and if it is for Insurance claim no proposal or insurance

bond was given. So the un-authorized deduction is deficiency in service and unfair

trade practice. Hence the complaint filed seeking to direct the opposite parties to

refund of Rs.12/- and Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and

also cost of the proceedings.

2. The opposite parties filed their written version stating that as per the scheme

launched by the Central Government 'Pradhanmantri Suraksha Bima Yojana'

(PMSBY) a sum of Rs.12/- has been debited which is actually for the benefit of the

complainant. As it was objected by the complainant the above amount has been

returned on 11.09.2015. Further the complainant never asked for return of the

amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The District Commission after received both sides proof affidavit, documents

marked as Exhibits-A1 to A5 and Exhibit-B1, finally, partly allowed the complaint

directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- jointly and severally towards

compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay Rs.4000/-

as costs to the complainant.

4. Aggrieved with the above order, this appeal has been preferred by the

opposite parties on the following:

Grounds: That, the order of the District Commission is against law and the

District Commission failed to note that the amount has been re-credited on

11.09.2015 and the document EX.B1 was not at all considered by the District

Commission and there is no deficiency on their part. Hence they prayed to allow the

appeal.

5. In this case, oral arguments of both sides heard and their written arguments

were also perused.

6. It is an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.24/- was debited by the first

opposite party/bank on 10.06.2015 and immediately Rs.12/- alone was re-credited in

his account. It was alleged by the opposite parties that Rs.12/- was debited towards

Premium for 'Pradhanmantri Suraksha Bima Yojana (PMSBY)'. The above deduction

is only for the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document