ORDER

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   Complainant is the current A/c holder of the OP  bank  vide A/c no.
600620110000277 with Karol Bagh Branch of the OP bank.

            It is alleged by the complainant that he is having balance
of approx. Rs.  4,00,000/- in the aforesaid account of OP bank. It is
further alleged by the complainant  that as he was suffering from
Heart Disease, he was not able to operate his aforesaid account for a
longtime and when he tried to operate the same , he found out that the
A/c was non operational but no reply was given by OP bank to the said
letter.

            Complainant contacted OP bank a number of times to get its
a/c working, but the OP bank did not respond to it.  Complainant wrote
letter dated 11.4.2014 to the OP bank seeking the status report of his
account and further requesting it to make the account operational, but
no reply was given by OP bank to the said letter.

                             It is alleged by the complainant that
     on his continuous persistence , the representative of the OP bank
informed him that his A/c was marked “lien as well  as frozen due to
prolonged non-usage and asked him to complete the KYC documents so
that A/c could be put under operational status.

It is alleged by the complainant that along with all the document , he
submitted the KYC form to OP bank vide request letter dated 17-6-2014
and in return the OP bank vide its e-mail dated 5-09-2014 confirmed
that his A/c had been activated and further KYC documents were
updated.

            It is further alleged by the complainant  that despite of
completing the formalities his account was not activated by  the OP
and when he personally visited and enquired about the same, then the
official of OP bank handed over to him a letter dated 16.12.2014
wherein the OP bank stated  that the complainant had introduced a
current account         , who submitted some fake documents to obtain
funds from the OP bank, which matter was still under investigation and
hence his account was lien marked as per the instruction of competent
authority.

            The complainant alleged that the Op bank on its own
accrued and in violation of the banking norms had illegally detained
his money. Hence, this complaint.

            Complaint has been contested by the OP. Para no.”C” of the
preliminary objection of written statement filed by the OP is relevant
and is reproduced as under:-

C)That, the complainant had been informed vide letter 16.12.2014
addressed by the opposite party that the reason for marking lien on
his account was that, he had introduced current account of M/s Fab
with the Parliament Street Branch of the opposite party, and it was
later discovered that, fake and forged title deeds had been submitted
by the said M/s India Fab as collateral security for the limits
sanctioned. The complainant was further informed by the opposite
party, that as the matter was still under investigation/probe, the
account of the complainant had been lien marked. It is respectfully
submitted that, whilst introducing an account, the introducer must
verify the fact the he knows the new customer, confirms his identity,
occupation/business and address stated in the account opening form. It
is further respectfully submitted that, as the aforementioned M/s
India Fab had defrauded the opposite party, and in respect of which
criminal proceedings have been initiated, until the matter has been
probed by the authorities, the opposite party is well within its
rights to mark lien on the account of the complainant. A copy of the
account opening form of M/s India Fab dated 13/06/2009 with enclosed
herewith as Annexure R-1.



 Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.

            We have heard the arguments advanced at the bar and have
perused the record.

            The counsel for the OP has contended that as the
complainant was the introducer of the current A/c of M/s India Fab and
as M/s India Fab had defrauded the OP bank, hence, the OP bank is well
within its right to mark lien on the account of the complainant. It
has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

            We , however, are not in agreement with the contention of
the counsel for the OP. The account opening form which the OP bank had
placed on record with its reply only suggest the introduction of the
new account opener.  The contents of the relevant part of the account
opening form is reproduced as under:-

I/we confirm that I am/we are an account holder with Bank Of India for
over 6 months. I/we certify that I/we have known Mr./Mrs. For Ravi
Enterprises since last  _______ months/years and confirm his/her/their
identity, occupation/business and address stated in this application
to open the account



   The bare perusal of  the contents of the account opening form makes
its abundantly clear that the complainant by its introduction only
confirmed the identity/ occupation/ business and address stated in the
application form, and nothing beyond that. Nowhere in the application
form it is mentioned that there is an undertaking by the complainant
regarding the act of the party introduced by him.

            Moreover, the  counsel  for the OP had failed to place on
record any documents/ provision of law which empowers the OP bank to
mark the  lien of the account of introducer/. Complainant especially
when the complainant has not committed any offence.

It is for the OP bank to carry out due diligence, before sanctioning
fund based limit to M/s Fab India.

            In view of the above discussion and the documents placed
on record, we hold OP bank guilty of deficiency in services and direct
it as under:-

1.    Release the money of the complainant lying in the current A/c
no. 600620110000277.

1.    Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation
for pain and agony suffered by him.

2.    Pay to the complainants a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.

The OP shall comply  with this order within a period of 30 days from
the date of this order failing which it  shall be liable to pay
interest onthe entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  If the OP
company fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach
this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the
Consumer Protection
Act.
Copy of the order be made available to theparties as per rule.

File be consigned to record room.



 Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................