Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/543

Bharat Kapur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 543 of 15.09.2015

Date of Decision    :  11.11.2016

              

Bharat Kapur, 23, Sukhmani Enclave, P.O.Rajguru Nagar, Ludhiana-141012.

….. Complainant

Versus

1.The Zonal Manager, Bank of India, Surya Kiran Complex, Phase-II, The Mall, Near Rakh Bagh, Ludhiana-141001.

2.Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.

…Opposite parties

 

    (COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :        In person

For Op1                         :        Sh.Rajan Arora, Advocate

For OP2                         :         Complaint already dismissed as withdrawn vide order

dated 07.12.2015.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                          Complainant subscribed to Inflation Indexed National Saving Securities-C floated by OP2 on 15.03.2014. Complainant had to route the subscription through any nationalized bank, wherein, he had an account. Complainant applied for the said securities though Bank of India, Barewal Branch, Ludhiana by sending cheque No.000001 dated 15.3.2014 of amount of Rs.25,000/-. Thereafter, he was issued Reserve Bank of India Subscription Receipt dated 29.3.2014 bearing reference No.3013/10927/97. No Formal Negotiable Instrument ever received by the complainant after issue of the said receipt dated 29.3.2014. Till February 2015, no instrument was received from the Reserve Bank of India and nor any formal or structural principle determining the return on investment were put on the website of  the Inflation Indexed National Saving Securities-C, was the information supplied by the senior officials of OP1. It was made known to the complainant that this particular investment was linked up with the high or low rate of the inflation, but the exact formula for calculation was never notified and nor any information provided. In view of this, complainant thought it to be prudent to withdraw from the undefined investment scheme and to invest the proceeds in the fixed deposit scheme in the bank with prevailing rate of interest of 9.5% for the senior citizens. Then complainant filed an application with Barewal Road Branch of Bank of India on 29.3.2015 for the pre-mature withdrawal from the said securities scheme. Despite repeated visits by the complainant and meeting with Zonal Manager Mr.Butchi Babu and despite 8-10 calls to Mumbai Head Office, complainant could not know anything about the remittance of the invested amount to his account. Op1 never offered to submit any formal reply or expressed regrets in the inordinate delay in obtaining the remittance from RBI. On email being sent on 1.6.2015 and legal notice dated 2.6.2015, it was disclosed to the complainant in the last week of May that his complaint has been forwarded to Banking Ombudsman at Chandigarh. On 2.6.2015, complainant received an SMS alert to the effect that an amount of Rs.26,164.50P had been credited in his saving bank account with Bank of India. Then complainant sought information as to whether OP1 and OP2 delayed the payment. Complaint by Banking Ombudsman was closed and complainant in para no.20 of the complainant himself claims that this complaint should not be treated as an appeal against the order of Banking Ombudsman. In the last week of   June 2015, the complainant got passbook of his saving bank account updated and found that an amount of Rs.181/- was credited on 15.6.2015 on account of interest because of delay in credit of RBI Bond. However, complainant returned this amount of Rs.181/- with interest of Rs.19/-(totaling of Rs.200/-) through cheque No.000012 dated 28.8.2015. Copy of communication dated 9.6.2015 sent by OP1 to the Banking Ombudsman not supplied to the complainant. Deficiency in service pleaded by claiming that same has caused personal inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. OP2 failed to issue the formal/physical Negotiable Instrument in a period of complete one year and the complainant is  having in hand only a computer generated subscription receipt, due to which, he could not approach OP2 for timely remittance. Due to complete silence on the part of Ops for period from 29.3.2015 to 2.6.2015, complainant has to suffer mental harassment and tension as well as inconvenience and even he lost the interest on principal amount. It is claimed in para no.24 of the complaint that cause of action accrued to the complainant on 15.3.2015, when he subscribed to RBI NSS-C Financial scheme through OP1 branch at Barewal Road, Ludhiana. Further, cause of action accrued on 1.6.2015 and 2.6.2015 and then again on credit of interest of Rs.181/- in the saving bank account. Compensation for mental harassment and costs of proceedings sought with prayer that complainant will surrender the same to Legal Aid Society or any such Fund approved by the Forum providing free legal aid to the deserving litigants. Even prayer made for debiting these costs from remuneration of the erring officials of bank responsible for the delay          in encashment of the instrument.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1, it is claimed that complaint contains exaggerations beyond proportion. Besides, it is claimed that allegations levelled in the complaint are vague, false and frivolous because there is no pith or substance in the story cooked up by the complainant qua alleged negligence. It is claimed that motive behind the filing of the complaint is to drag the Ops in false and frivolous litigation to extract money or something else. Besides, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the service availed for commercial purpose, due to which, complainant is not a consumer. It is further claimed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and nor any harassment caused to the complainant. Besides, it is claimed that every type of information is available on internet. As per RBI directions, the investor can invest the amount through the authorized banks and Stock Holding Corporation of India. Customer is to fill an application form and submit the same along with other documents and payment to the bank. After receipt of money, the bank is to register the investor on the RBI’s web-based platform (E-Kuber). On validation, certificate of holding is to be generated. The securities to be issued in the form of Bonds Ledger Accounts and those to be held with RBI because the same is to act as Central depository. After receiving the money and registration of the Investor on RBI’s CBS (E-Kuber), RBI will open BLA for each investor and issue a “Certificate of Holding” indicating number of units of NSS-C (Inflation Indexed) held by the investor. The listless complaint sent by the complainant was rejected by the Banking Ombudsman in June 2015. Grievance of the complainant had already been readdressed because he had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.26,164.50P through Saving Bank Account on 2.6.2015. SMS in that respect was sent to the complainant. Even Rs.181/- i.e. the interest amount paid to the complainant on 15.6.2015 for the delayed period. However, complainant with malafide intention for enriching himself returned the interest through cheque dated 28.8.2015 of amount of Rs.200/-. That cheque has been sent back by the OP1 by registered letter dated 22.9.2015 at the residential address of the complainant and as such, complaint alleged to have become infructuous. Rather, complainant himself admitted about prompt action taken by Op1. No cause of action has accrued to the complainant against OP1. Besides, it is claimed that complicated question of law and facts cannot be decided by this Forum because the same is within the domain of Civil Courts. Admittedly, the complainant applied for Securities-C through Bank of India-Barewal Road Branch, Ludhiana by sending cheque of Rs.25,000/- dated 15.3.2014 and he was issued the Reserve Bank of India Subscription Receipt dated 29.3.2014. Admittedly, complainant filed application with Barewal Branch of OP1 on 29.3.2015 for the premature withdrawal from Securities-C scheme and that is why, Rs.26,164.50P credited in the Saving Bank Account of the complainant. Admittedly, the complainant filed complaint with Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, which was forwarded to the Nodal Officer on 3.6.2015 and Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh closed the complaint vide orders dated 10.6.2015. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied.

3.                In reply submitted by way of affidavit by OP2, it is claimed that complaint is mis-conceived and devoid of merits legally as well as factually. OP2 neither necessary nor proper party. Op2 is not responsible for any delay and complaint does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There was no delay on the part of oP2 in settling the claim. In fact, OP2 received the communication on 1.6.2015 and on the same day, the same was approved for premature withdrawal. In reply before the Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh, it was submitted that amount has been paid to the complainant and that is why, complaint was closed by Banking Ombudsman. As per Government of India’s notification No.F 4(16)-W&M/2012 dated December 19, 2013, the bonds to be issued only in the form of Bonds Ledger Account and may be held at the credit of the holder in an account called Bonds Ledger Account (BLA). BLA to be held by Reserve Bank of India and certificate of holding as specified in Form I to be issued to the holder of bonds in BLA only. Complainant was duly issued certificate of holding. The Bonds are not negotiable instruments because they have limited transferability to nominee (s) on death of holder, from the subscription receipt. From the subscription receipt, it is made out that complainant has duly nominated one Anusuya Kapur as nominee and as such, the fear of the complainant qua loss in the event of his death are unfounded. The frequently asked questions about Inflation Indexed National Saving Securities-Cumulative are available at URL https://rbi.org.in/scripts/FAQView.aspx?Id=99.  It is clearly mentioned in those questions that inflation rate will be based on the final combined Consumer Price Index [(CPI) base: 2010=100]. The final combined CPI will be used as reference CPI with a lag of three months. For example, the final combined CPI for September 2013 will be used as reference CPI for whole of December 2013. Bank of India forwarded a proposal for premature withdrawal of the bonds by the complainant on 1.6.2015 and the same was approved by OP2 on the same day without delay. Bank of India vide email dated 9.6.2015 forwarded a letter to the complainant stating that he had received premature payment of the bonds and that Op1 has received a letter from the complainant expressing his satisfaction. Banking Ombudsman has already closed     the complaint of the complainant and complainant has received the amount of premature withdrawal.

4.                Complainant has already suffered statement on 7.12.2015 for withdrawal of complaint against OP2 and as such, complaint against Op2 has already been ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn vide orders dated 7.12.2015 itself. So, contest of complainant remains with Op1.

5.                Complainant to prove his case tendered his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Annexure-A and Annexure-B and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Satinder Singh, Officer of OP1 Bank Branch Barewal Road, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R8 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

7.                Complainant submitted written arguments. Oral arguments of complainant as well as counsel for OP1 heard and records gone through minutely. 

8.                Admittedly, the complaint filed by the complainant with Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh has been closed. However, Banking Ombudsman award is not a bar for the Consumer Fora to adjudicate the matter as per law laid down in case Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sandeep Joshi-2015(4)CLT-108(N.C.). So, this complaint is maintainable, even if Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh may have closed the complaint filed by the complainant.

9.                Complainant vehemently contends that action against erring official of OP1 i.e. Bank of India for delay in encashment of instrument should be taken. However, order for initiation of departmental action against erring official cannot be passed by this Forum legally and as such, no order of deduction of any amount from the salary of the employee of Bank of India can be passed by this Forum. In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case titled as Inder Singh Sachdeva (Wing Commander) Vs Amritbir Singh and others 2015(4)CLT-162(Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh). Ratio of this case lays that for irregularities in allotment or of cancellation, directions cannot be passed by District Forum for registration of FIR against the erring employees because it is beyond the purview of the District Forum to initiate departmental action. Departmental action against the erring employees like that of withholding of increment or of deductions from the salaries can be taken by the concerned authorities as per above cited case.

10.              It is also contended by the complainant that statement of account Ex.R4 produced by OP1 in this Forum without demand violates the norm of fiduciary relationship. However, Ops have proved their case by producing such statement of account so as to establish as to on which date, amount of Rs.26,164.50P credited in the account of the complainant on request of premature withdrawal and as to how much amount of interest credited in his account on account of delayed credit in the RBI Bonds. This statement of account Ex.R4 submitted in the course of proceedings between the complainant and OP1 bank and as such, the same has not been made public at all.

11.              Submission of application for information under RTI Act or the reply submitted is a matter of internal correspondence and this Forum cannot delve into that angle because RTI Act is a complete code itself and Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to see as to whether the information supplied under RTI Act is due information or not or as to whether any impropriety committed in supply of that information or not? In holding this view, we are fortified by law laid down in case titled as S.Dorai Raj vs. Divisional Personal Officer-I(2014)CPJ-444(N.C.).

12.              Allegations that information regarding bonds in question put on the internet are not correct because OP2 in his reply has mentioned the website, on which, the frequently asked questions qua the bonds in question are put thereon.

13.              As per notification No.F(16)-W&M/2012 dated 19.12.2013 (Annexure-A) issued by the Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs of Government of India, Inflation Indexed National Savings Securities-Cumulative, 2013, the bonds to be issued in form of Bonds Ledger Account only and the said BLA to be held to the credit of the holder in an account called BLA. Reference to clause 8 of this notification can specifically made in this respect. Copy of that notification has been produced on record and as such, in view of the information published through notification issued by the Government of India, it is obvious that information made available to the public. So, grievance of the complainant  that information qua the bonds in question not supplied to him remains a grievance of making of mind of the complainant only. Bonds in the form of BLA alone to be issued and the same to be held by the Reserve Bank of India as per clause 8 of the notification. Further, a certificate of holding as specified in form I will be issued to the holder of bonds in Bonds Ledger Account as per clause 8 of the above said notification and as such, submissions of complainant has no force that physical Negotiable Instrument was to be issued to him after depositing of Rs.25,000/- by him with Bank of India. There is no provision made in the above pointed notification qua issue of Negotiable Instrument and as such, complainant could not have sought the Negotiable Instrument.

14.              Complainant himself admitted through Ex.R7 having purchased 5 units   of Reserve Bank of India Inflation Indexed NSS-C for Rs.25,000/- through Bank of India, Barewal Road Branch, Ludhiana on 29.3.2014. In view of this admission of the complainant contained in Ex.R7, it is obvious that the complainant fully aware about the number of the certificates and that is why, he has specifically mentioned certificate ID IINSS000000000171303-171307 dated 29.3.2014 in Ex.R7 itself. Complainant sought premature encashment of these bonds by submitting request Ex.R7. Even copy of holding certificate by the complainant with print date 29.3.2014 has been produced by the OP bank. Copy of subscription receipt with print date 29.3.2014 even submitted by the OP bank. Complainant too admits having received of subscription receipt. That subscription receipt mentions name of the nominee as well as the account holder and as such, apprehension of the complainant that in the event of his death before receipt of Negotiable Instrument, his heirs would not have been able to seek refund of the amount, is absolutely mis-conceived. The appointed nominee mentioned in the subscription receipt certainly was entitled to the amounts in the imagined event of death of the complainant and as such, complaint certainly is based on imaginary facts in this respect. Mentioning of name of the nominee in subscription receipt enough to give notice to the complainant that the amount invested by him in the bonds will not remains unrecovered in any eventuality.

15.              Provision is made regarding transferability of Bonds Ledger Account(BLA) to nominee in the event of death of the holder through clause 12 of notification annexure-A dated 19.12.2013 of Government of India referred above.

16.              Page 6 of Annexure-A provides that the investor is entitled to receive payment amount within five clear working days from the date of tender of acquaintance. Further, clause (n) at page no.6 of Annexure-A provides that investors are entitled for compensation for delayed payments at the rate decided by RBI vide their circulars issued from time to time. This in fact is the information available for investors qua the scheme in question. In view of this, it is claimed that for the delayed payment for period from 31.3.2015 to 1.6.2015 allowing of interest @4% p.a. i.e. Saving Bank interest rate is improper. Therefore, it is contended that offered interest of Rs.181/- is improper. Even if this offered interest was improper to the knowledge of the complainant, despite that complainant should not have unilaterally acted by return of the amount of Rs.200/- through cheque. Rather, the complainant should have sought Redressal of grievance through this complaint without returning the credited amount of Rs.181/-. Amount of Rs.200/- returned back to the complainant vide letter Ex.R6 of date 22.9.2015 and as such, OP1 has done the right thing in this respect.

17.              It is contended by the complainant that as per documents produced on record, process for premature return of the amount initiated by OP1 late and as such, for this fault on the part of OP1, there is deficiency in service on their part. If claim against Op2 has been withdrawn by the complainant, then it is because of assertion contained in para no.6 of the written statement of OP2 that after receipt of communication on 1.6.2015, approval for premature withdrawal was granted on the same day. So, virtually the complainant was satisfied with this explanation offered by OP2 and that is why, he withdrew the complaint against OP2. That has no effect on the rights of the complainant qua deficiency of service(if any) on the part of OP1.

18.              Application Ex.R7 was submitted by the complainant with Manager of Bank of India, Barewal Road, Ludhiana for praying for arrangement of remittance of the invested amount in Inflation Indexed NSS-C bonds. This application Ex.R7 does not bear any date and as such, documentary evidence produced on record does not establish as to on which date the request for premature encashment was submitted by the complainant. However, redemption before maturity is permissible under clause 15 of Government of India notification dated 19.12.2013(referred above), after one year of holding from the date of issue thereof at instance of senior citizens i.e. 65 years and of above age. Complainant claims himself to be a senior citizen and as such, premature encashment possible only after 28.3.2015 because BLA(certificate of holding/subscription receipt) bears the date of issue as 29.3.2014.

19.              Email correspondence Ex.R8 shows that the request Ex.R7 must have been submitted by the complainant for premature encashment prior to 15.4.2015 and that is why through this email dated 15.4.2015, Branch Manager of Barewal Road Branch of Bank of India sought advise as to what they should do in matter of refund of premature encashment of amount. So, application Ex.R7 must have been filed before 15.4.2015. Why that application reached in the office of OP2 on 1.6.2015 qua that no explanation offered in the written statement or in the affidavit submitted on behalf of OP1. So, fault lay with the staff of Bank of India in not taking the matter with OP2 at earliest after submission of request by the complainant before 15.4.2015. This is despite the fact that complainant could have sought premature encashment after 28.3.2015. There is no dispute qua the fact that the complainant received payment on 2.6.2015. After going through email Ex.R8, it is made out that OP1 continued to have correspondence with concerned from 15.4.2015 to 29.4.2015 only and as such, this record supports the contents of complaint that OP1 and its officials ceased to put efforts only after 29.4.2015 in matter of refund. Why that cessation of efforts took place after 29.4.2015 qua that no explanation offered and as such, in view of reaching of communication from OP1 to OP2 on 1.6.2015 only, OP1 and its staff responsible for delayed payment. However, for this delayed payment, interest of Rs.181/- sent on 15.6.2015 is a fact borne from the copy of statement of account Ex.R4 and even from the letter Ex.R6 as well as by contents of complaint. Complainant contends that he has been denied interest due on FDR of amount of Rs.25,000/- from 29.4.2015 to 1.6.2015 due to fault of OP1 and its officials in not taking further action in the matter after 29.4.2015 and for that he needs to be compensated. Interest on the bonds payable @1.5%(fixed rate) per annum + inflation rate calculated with respect to final combined Consumer Price Index [(CPI) base: 2010=100]. So, complainant at the most was deprived from interest on the bonds at the above referred rate stipulated in clause 13 of notification dated 19.12.2013 of Government of India referred above because the bonds in question purchased by the complainant in pursuance of the said notification. Figure regarding Inflation rate calculated with respect to final combined consumer price index has not been supplied and as such, it is not possible to assess as to how much loss actually suffered by the complainant on account of delayed payment for the period from 29..4.2015 to 1.6.2015. In view of this, lump-sum compensation of Rs.500/- allowed for this deficiency in service on the part of OP1 and its official. Complainant had to run from one office to other by filing complaint with Banking Ombudsman and other authorities for getting his dues and as such, he suffered mental tension and agony also, due to which, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.2500/- under this head, but to litigation expenses of Rs.2000/-.

20.       It is contended by counsel for OP1 that OP1 is just an agent because bonds were to be issued by OP2 and as such, complainant is not a consumer of OP1. That submission of counsel for OP1 has no force because perusal of clause 10 of above said notification of the Government of India reveals that application for bonds to be submitted in the branches of State Bank of India or other Nationalized Banks or Stock Holding Corporation of India Ltd during working hours. So, OP1 was to receive the application for forwarding the same to RBI. The bonds are not tradable in the secondary market is laid down in clause 14 of the said notification. Handling charges @1.00 (rupee one only) to be paid by the authorized banks on the subscription amount received by them from the investors is the provision made in clause 16 of the above said notification. If that be the position, then OP1 got handling charges from the complainant and as such, it was to provide services to the complainant. Clause 10 of above said notification further provides that applications for the bonds in the form of Bonds Ledger Account will be received by the Nationalized Banks and as such, in that capacity, OP1 received application from the complainant. Besides, clause 15 of the above said notification provides that investors will be advised by the authorized bank, one month before maturity regarding the ensuing maturity of the bond advising them to provide a Letter of Acquaintance, confirming the NEFT/NECS account details etc to the authorized bank and that is why, the same was done by the complainant for seeking premature encashment and as such, it was the responsibility of OP1, being the authorized bank to forward the application at earliest. So, service of early dispatch of the application to be provided by the Op1 to the complainant after receipt of handling charges. In view of this, it is obvious that OP1 provided services to the complainant for consideration and as such, certainly the complainant is a consumer of OP1, even if OP1 acted as an agent of RBI. If record of repeated visits of the complainant not produced, then the same does not make difference because contents of Ex.R8 enough to show that the complainant pressed hard for early encashment and that is why advise by Barewal Branch of Bank of India sought from the Superiors. Even if premature encashment amount to be returned by RBI, but despite that prompt action for seeking return not taken during the period from 29.4.2015 to 1.6.2015 as discussed above and as such, fault lay with Op1 in that respect. It was not RBI, who was to do  the entire work, but OP1 as authorized branch was also to perform the certain acts as discussed above and as such, submissions advanced by counsel for OP1 has no force that fault does not lie with OP1 or its officials. Even if the complainant may have claimed that he is not to seek compensation because the same may be credited towards Consumer Welfare Fund, despite that in view of above discussion, it has to be held that the complainant stood harassed due to in action on the part of OP1 for the period referred above. Gesture of the complainant not to claim the compensation or litigation expenses shows that he has not filed the complaint for earning profit and as such, genuine complaint of the complainant deserves to be allowed to the extent indicated above.

21.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP1 will pay Rs.500/- to the complainant as compensation in lieu of interest lost by the complainant during period from 29.4.2015 to 1.6.2015. Further, Op1 will pay Rs.2500/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony and Rs.2000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Payment of these amount be made by OP1 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order In case, OP1 failed to pay the amount of Rs.500/- referred above within 30 days, then OP1 will also pay interest @8% per annum w.e.f.12.12.2016 onwards till payment. No interest will be payable on compensation amount for harassment and litigation expenses. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

20.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                                      (Vinod Bala)                     (G.K.Dhir)

                              Member                            President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:11.11.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.