Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
Deficiency in service against the Opposite Party is the grievance of the complainant.
2. The case of the complainant is that he is a customer of State Bank of India, Surada Branch, Surada, Ganjam having his Saving Bank account number 1145908737 (01190014043) vide pass book No.005175 with single mode of operation since 12th November 2005 for transfer of his salary and for his day today transactions. He being a teacher (Sikhya Sahayaka) with a meager consolidated pay of Rs.1500/- per month, on dated 14.1.2013 deposited a sum of Rs.600/- in his saving bank account. Subsequently when the complainant on dated 19.1.2013 approached the bank of opposite party for withdrawal of Rs.500/- it was replied by the O.P. Bank that “the said account remain inoperative” and there by refused to honor such withdrawal of the complainant. On 21.1.2013 when the complainant was again refused for withdrawal by the opposite party, although on both the occasions the balance was of Rs.1302/- in said account, the complainant approached the O.P. to resolve the crisis. Surprisingly the opposite party became violent, abused and misbehaved the complainant and ultimately threw the opening application at the face of the complainant and asked to vacate his office immediately by saying the following statement that “do whatever you like, I am not going to make your account operative and will not do anything henceforth and get lost from my office”. This misbehavior of the O.P. caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant during the period of his financial hardship, by mis-utilising the power and without giving any honor to the banker customer relationship at all. It is also further alleged by the complainant that on three occasions the amount of Rs.200/-, Rs.200/- and Rs.194/- were debited for the complainant account in the name of “MIN BAL CHGSBCH”, although the complainant has never availed cheque book facility as alleged. When the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.600/- on dated 14.1.2013 the account became operative but after five days the same account was found again inoperative. Then on dated 19.1.2013 and 21.1.2013 the O.P. refused the complainant to withdraw the amount. The above action of the Opposite party clearly proves the deficiency of service towards the complainant and simultaneously establishes the damages and injury caused due to the harassment and frustration made to the present complainant. Being aggrieved the complainant issued legal notice on dated 29.1.2013 the O.P. which was received by the O.P. but in vain . Finding no other resort the complainant filed this case before this Forum with a prayer to direct the O.P. to operate the dormant account No.11459508737 , as well as compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony , Rs.5000/- for litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the Opposite Party entered its appearance through his Advocate and filed written version resisting the claim of the complainant. In the written version it is submitted by the O.P. that the account No.11459508737 of the complainant became inoperative due to non-operation of the account. Since the last operation was carried out on 19.5.2010, so there was requirement of application from the complainant for making the account operative at the time of withdrawal on 31.12.2012. The complainant has told that his account was operative based upon his deposit in to account on 14.1.2013 for Rs.600/-. As per banking law and practice, the account status does not change to operative on deposit of money as anybody can deposit into the account. But in inoperative accounts an application is required for establishing identification of the account holder at the time of withdrawal. Moreover, the complainant’s account was KYC deficient account which required production of photo ID/Pan card, electric bill and recent photo. In this situation, the complainant was told to produce the same which he did not. With such inoperative and non KYC stratus of the account, the complainant came for operation/withdrawal on 21.1.2013. The complainant was referred to Branch Manager. Then the Branch Manager called for original account opening form with the documents produced at the time of opening the account for verification. When it was brought by the messenger to Branch Manager’s table, the Branch Manager was not present in his chamber and gone to the banking hall. Taking advantage of the situation i.e. absence of Branch Manager or any other staff in Branch Managers chamber the complainant surreptitiously taken away his documents as referred to above and left the Branch without anybody’s notice. To hide this fact he is telling/alleging that the documents were thrown upon him by the Branch Manager, which is totally denied by this O.P. When the complainant lodged a complaint online through CMS the branch contracted the complainant for redressal. In the branch premises there was also discussion with the complainant and the complainant was advised to produce the documents for continuing operation of the account and the same was intimated to him vide Branch letter No. Branch/42/2 dated. 2.4.2013. But this has not been compiled by the complainant till date. The complainant’s anger is due to levy of penalty for non-maintenance of minimum balance. The bank was deducting charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance in the saving bank account, at that point of time. The O.P. further submitted that the allegation made by the complainant regarding his visit to the Branch 3 to 4 times for withdrawal and Branch Manager told him he has to produce application as many time are false, baseless and denied in toto by this O.P. The O.P. humbly submits that the complainant was only asked to produce his proof of identity, proof of residence and an application to make his account operative and to conform the KYC norms as stipulated under law and by RBI. Instead of complying with the same, the complainant has unnecessarily filed this petition with ulterior motives and trying to settle the score on account of the amount deducted from his account, due to non-maintenance of minimum balance as per the banking norms. Further it is submitted by the O.P. that the petition is barred by limitation and not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and there is also no cause of action for filing this complaint. Hence this O.P. prayed this Forum to dismiss the case with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of hearing we heard argument from both sides at length. We have gone through the complaint petition, version, written argument and documents available in the record. It is an admitted fact the complainant is a consumer under the O.P. vides S.B. Account No.11459508737. On 19.1.2013 the complainant went to Bank for withdrawal of Rs.500/- the O.P. refused to pay as his account remained inoperative, but at that time the balance was of Rs.1302/- in his S.B. Account. Despite several persuasions the Opposite Party did not pay heed to consider the grievance of the complainant. This Forum by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in M/S ICICI Bank ltd. Versus K.Venkatareddy reported in 2008(4) CPR 396 “Banking service is clearly covered under the consumer Protection Act and anybody aggrieved by the deficiency in service by the Bank can file a complaint”. And also another citation passed by State Commission, Bangalore in Canara Bank, Bangalore versus Sri R.K. Hanumantha Rao, 1992(1) CPR 401 such as “ S.B. account holder of a Bank is a consumer under the consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant- account- holder not to suffer on account of the negligence of the Bank’s employees”. In the light of the above decision of law we partially allow the case of the complainant.
In the result the complaint case is partially allowed against the O.P. The Opposite Party is directed to operate the dormant account of the complainant bearing S.B. Account No.11459508737within seven days from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant is also directed to submit KYC requirements before the Bank, if not submitted the same. In the above peculiar facts and circumstances we are not inclined to impose any cost. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Pronounced in the open Forum today on 17th February 2016.
Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
