Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII,      5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                                      Complaint Case No. 105/2023

Bunty s/o Haider Ali

R/o B-342, Near Buland Masjid Gandhi Nagar,

Shastri Park, North-East, Delhi-110053                                       …Complainant

                                                Versus

OP1-Axis Bank Limited (through its Manager)

At: Axis House (Corporate Office)

C-2, Wadia, International Centre, Pandurang,

Budhkar Marg, Worli,

Mumbai-400025     

OP2-The Axis Bank Limited (through its Branch Manager)

No. 18, 4625/18, Netaji Subhash Marg,

Daryaganj, New Delhi-110002

OP3. ADG L&O Police

Cyber Crime Cell, Police Office, Rudraprayag,

Uttrakhand-246171                                                                         ...Opposite Party

                                                                                    Date of filing:             28.07.2023

Coram:                                                                       Date of Order:            05.08.2024

Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female

                                                       FINAL ORDER

Rashmi Bansal, Member

By the present order the Commission is disposing of the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency of services on the part of OP1, OP2 and OP3 in freezing his bank account and failed to de-freeze it, which has caused him financial losses, inconvenience, harassment and mental agony. OP1 and OP2 are corporate office and branch office of Axis Bank respectively with whom the complainant is having his bank account and OP3 is Cyber-crime Cell, Uttarakhand.

1. Case of the complainant
   1. The complainant is the customer of OP1 and OP2 having saving account number 921010014327257 in his name. He submits that he has received an amount of Rs.30,000/- from an unknown person on 15.11.2021 in his account through mobile banking ‘PhonePe’. Thereafter, he received a telephonic call from one Shri Papendra Singh, mobile number 8006529257, asking the complainant about the said transaction stating that same has been transferred to complainant’s number by mistake and asked the complainant for return of the same. The complainant has returned the above stated amount of Rs. 30,000/- to the said Shri Papendra Singh after proper police verification at the police station, Kashmere Gate through his sister’s bank account namely Ms. Ayesha, on 14.12.2021, as his bank account was under freeze by OP1 and OP2. The said Shri Papendra Singh has also given statement before police station, Kashmere Gate, New Delhi acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 30,000/- through account of Ms. Ayesha and also that he does not want any proceedings against the complainant as the amount under dispute is returned to him.  
   2. Complainant submits that he has informed to OP1 and OP2 about the said payment with request for de-freezing his bank account, but OP1 and OP2 neither has taken any action for defreezing his bank account despite many repeated requests from him nor informed him the reason behind it. However, the legal notice dated 19.04.2023 sent by the complainant to OP1 and OP2, was replied by the them on 12.05.2023 stating that the said account is under debit freeze as per the directions of OP3 vide its notice dated 24.11.2021 and that they have only complied with orders of above stated statutory authority. It is further stated that the said fact has been informed to the complainant that account is under debit freeze as per the direction of OP3; OP1 / OP2 were bound to comply the order of such statutory authorities and has acted accordingly and they are not competent to defreeze the said account without getting appropriate orders from OP3.
   3. Complainant sent an application dated 17.05.2023 to OP3 via postal service stating all facts with request to defreeze his account but same was returned to the complainant with the remark ‘refused’. Complainant submits that since then, the account of complainant is freeze /withhold and because of non-action and deficient services on the part of OP1, OP2 and OP3, he has been facing hardship due to non-transaction of his bank account and prays for the directions for defreezing of his bank account, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for losses, mental agony and harassment caused to him due to deficiency in services by OPs and an interest @ 24% p.a. till the realization.

2. Upon notice, OP1, OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite effective service upon them on 29.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 01.09.2023 respectively and they were proceeded ex-parte on 02.01.2024. (The date of ex-parte mentioned in order dated 02.01.2024 as 29.08.2023, 28.08.2023 and 01.09.2023, which is actually date of service of notice upon them, correct date is to be read as 02.01.2024)
3. Complainant has filed his ex-parte evidence and filed copy of :
   1. legal notice dated 19.04.2023 addressed to OP1 and OP2, along with postal receipt and acknowledgement,
   2. reply dated 12.05.2023 to the said legal notice by OP1 and OP2,
   3. application dated 17.05.2023 written to OP3 along with acknowledgement track report,
   4. statement dated 14.12.2021 of Shri Papendra Singh recorded in the police station.
4. The commission has heard the arguments and perused the documents filed and proved by the complainant.
   1. The documents on record show that complainant is having his bank account with OP2 and is the customer of OP1 and OP2 being the corporate office and branch office of Axis bank.  It is also established from the documents on record that the bank account of the complainant was attached by the Cybercrime Cell, police office, Rudraprayag, (OP3) vide its notice dated 24.11.2021. This is also stated by OP1 and OP2 in their reply dated 12.05.2023 that they have acted in compliance of the same and they have no authority or competency to defreeze the said bank account of the complainant without getting appropriate orders from OP3. However, the said notice was not provided to the complainant by OP1 and OP2 nor it was attached with the said reply dated 12.05.2023. 
   2. OP3 is not present to clarify the situation. Moreover, it has also refused to receive complainant’s application dated 17.05.2023 addressed to it as per track report filed by the complainant.
   3. Complainant has placed on record the statement of Shri Papendra Singh given at the police station, confirming receipt of Rs. 30,000/- from his sister Ms. Ayesha’s bank complainant. During course of arguments, the complainant has also filed the bank statement of his sister Ms Ayesha’s account, bearing no. 0161000101643209, of Punjab National Bank, (IFSC Code PUNB0027520) showing payment of Rs. 30,0000/- to Shri Papendra Singh Kanwar on 14.12.2021. Therefore, it is established that the money is paid back to Shri Papendra Singh.
   4. The complainant filed the present complaint as OP1 and OP2 failed to take any action to make his account operational despite repeated requests and OP3 has not even accepted the application of the complainant requesting for defreezing his account.
   5. The whole circumstances of the facts reveal that complainant is left in dismay firstly, on account of sudden freezing of his bank account by OP1 and OP2 without seeking any explanation from him and secondly, because of not updating him about what is required to be done for making his bank account operational. A common man, who avails services of any service provider has only option to approach his service provider in case of any grievances with respect to its services and the service provider is under obligation to redress the grievance of their customer and to guide them appropriately for actions required to be taken to resolve the issue. In the present case, OP1 and OP2 have not taken any action to resolve the problem of the complainant nor guided him about what is required to be done by him for defreezing his bank account. Though OP1 and OP2 have acted in compliance of the order from OP3, which of course, is their duty but simultaneously, they being the service provider of the complainant, owe a duty towards the complainant also in resolving his grievances, however, they failed in performing their duties towards complainant as well as failed in protecting his rights of having safe, secure and smooth functioning of his bank account. Even after payment made by the complainant, OP1 and OP2 did not make any efforts to de-freeze or get ide- freeze his bank account which left the complainant in lurch and made him run from post to pillar for resolution of his grievance.  OP1 and OP2 cannot shrug off their responsibility simply by stating that they are bound to follow OP3’s instruction and expect its customers, herein the complainant, to get orders from OP3. Rather, it was duty of OP1 and OP2 to coordinate with OP3 and to take appropriate action to de-freeze the account of the complainant, in which OP1 and OP2 failed.  Therefore, considering the above, it is established that OP1 and OP2 lacked in performing their services and are liable for deficient service to this extent. 
5. Conclusion
   1. Therefore, considering the above discussion, this Commission finds that the account of the complainant should be made operational by OP1 and OP2. The Commission finds that OP1 and OP2 are liable for their deficient services to the extent of their failure to take any action to de - freeze or get de – freeze the account of the complainant upon intimation of payment to Shri Papendra by the complainant and directs OP1 and OP2 to immediately defreeze the bank account of the complainant bearing no. 921010014327257 within 15 days from the date of this order.
   2. The complainant has prayed for the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. Though OP1 and OP2 lacked to certain extent in fulfilling their duties towards complainant considering that they have acted in furtherance of the direction of OP3, the compensation to this higher side is not justified, however, a compensation of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- is appearing to be justified considering the limited aspect of deficient service by OP1 and OP2 and is being granted, to be payable by OP1 & OP2.
   3. Further the complainant has also prayed for other appropriate relief. Considering that the complainant had served advance legal notice to OPs and also has filed the present complaint for want of settlement of his genuine grievances, this makes out him entitled for the litigation cost which is determined as Rs. 5,000/- in his favour to be paid by OP1 and OP2.
6. Accordingly, the complaint is partly allowed in favour of the complainant and against the OP1 and OP2 and dismissed against OP3, being a public authority. The following directions are issued to OP1 and OP2:
   1. To defreeze the account of the complainant bearing number 921010014327257 within 15 days from the date of order;
   2. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant;
   3. To pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards the litigation cost; 

The above stated order be complied with by OP1 and OP2 within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, Rs. 5000/- every three months will be added into compensation part of Rs. 10,000/- besides payment of the litigation cost. The OP1 and OP2 are further directed to file the compliance report of this order before this Commission for necessary action record.

7. Announced on 05.08.2024.
8. Copy of this order be sent forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances besides to upload on the website of this commission.