Order-18.
Date-22/07/2015.
Complainant Sourendra Nath Dutt by filing this complaint submitted that he has a Savings Bank Account of State Bank of India, Dalhousie Branch having A/c No. 322690711988 which was opened on 30.03.2012 by written application of the said account.So in the Account Opening Form where it was clearly mentioned that the said account is treated a ‘no-frill account’ and the said Branch of the said Bank accepted the application of the complainant and sent a Speed Post Letter dated 04.04.2012 which was received by the complainant on 09.04.2012.
Fact remains that complainant deposited of Rs. 680/- at State Bank of India, Dallhousie Branch and on 04.12.2012 the said Bank deducted Rs. 25/- from his said Savings Bank Account.In spite of his letter dated 12.12.2012 the said Bank failed to return the same amount of Rs. 25/- and Bank said that the said money was deducted for Inter Branch Charges which is against the Core Banking Policy and also BCSBI which sets minimum standards of Banking practice and also against the customer rights which shall be governed by the Government of India under the Ministry of Finance.
It is specifically mentioned that the definition of Core Banking Solution (CBS) is to be the 1st choice in savings bank deposit scheme with innovative customer centric service and provide access to diverse financial service, product thereby becoming the engine of economic and social growth which increased operational efficiency and CBS is not merely a working of branches which enables customer to operate their accounts and customer is no more of the customer of a particular branch.This CBS is to step towards enhancing customer convenience through any branch and anytime banking and CBS is banking solution a part of the overall solution planned for India.
Fact remains that complainant pointed out in his complaint a theorization to improve the banking system to give proper service to the customer and also some economic theorization about banking finance and their structures.At the same time he has pointed out in his complaint that Government Banks are guided by the RBI.So, they are bound to follow the instruction and the guidelines of the RBI.
Fact remains that a no-frill service or product is one of which the non-essential features have been removed to keep the price low or service without any cost.He has also pointed out another theorization about SMS charge as imposed by the bank for operating ATM.Someother complications which are being faced by the customer are also ventilated.Practically he has alleged that op Bank cannot deduct any inter branch charges of Rs. 25/-, SMS charges of Rs. 15/- and deduction of any money if sufficient of fund is there in the savings bank account and other matters and practically he has brought some allegations against deduction of those charges and prayed for refund of those amount which had already been admitted against his use of the said ATM.
On the other hand op by filing this complaint has submitted that no doubt complainant is a customer having A/c No. 322690711988 and it is specifically mentioned that as per terms and conditions of the banking rules and regulations and account opening rules, charges against use of the account are deducted from the account of the complainant like all other customers.Complainant has failed to produce any order of the Finance Department (Banking) or RBI that banks are not entitled to deduct SMS, against inter branch bank charge, maturity of money etc. and in fact op prayed for dismissing the complaint on the ground that the complainant failed to produce any paper of the Finance Department (Banking) Government of India or of the RBI.
Decision with reasons
After careful study of the complaint and also written version and further hearing the argument of the complainant and the Ld. Lawyer of the op, we have gathered that practically complainant has brought the allegation against the bank for charging some fees against some banking transactions for getting information through SMS and for inter banking transaction of money and for some other reasons and also for keeping fund against any account.
No doubt we have gathered that complainant tried to convince that practically as per C.P. Act 1986 and also as per RBI guideline, the customer is entitled to get free banking service or of any other institution, all information about the policy of transaction, the guidelines which are in the public domain.In fact the bank ought to have placed before this Forum that under what head they have deducted such sort of fees from the account of the customers.Rules and regulations of the bank or guideline of the RBI has not been produced.This conduct cannot be tolerated by this Forum when mere denial is not sufficient.In most of the cases, banking authorities are keeping and placing all rules and regulations back behind the knowledge of the Forum to disallow the complainant but such a casual approach is taken by the banking authority, LIC Authority in so many cases though there are certain purpose of guidelines.But ultimately it is found that they fail to place all those documents before Forum.We have gathered that in this case disclosure of opinion in the public domain is prime act on the part of the Insurance Company, Finance Institution and Banking Authority.Levy of charges for inter bank transaction or SMS charge should be informed to the customers by sending it or by placing it in the bank or by publishing it by website.But all those matters are not properly done by the bank, financial institution or the LIC for which no doubt customers are being misled.In this context it is to be mentioned that RBI already specifically instructed all the banks, financial institutions who are guided by the RBI to the effect that as customers have their some rights and bank shall have to knowledgeable in respect of their rights and to supply details to customers and there must be effective Customer Grievance Cell which shall have to register the grievance of the Customers.
No doubt everywhere there is a Customer Cell but op must have to show that customers are properly entertained through a bank by the Customer Care Centre.We are very much aware of the fact that there are so many Customer’s Grievance Cell of many companies and other.But they are not giving redressal to the customer, but they are only to harass the customers.Practically in this case what we have gathered that complainant has been harassed by the Bank, invariably he went to bank and asked for supplying the guidelines but bank did not supply when he has filed this complaint.However it is the guideline of the RBI that the Bank website should contain all information being displayed on the notice board and bank has to ensure that customers can submit all request easily and get information from the Home Page, from the website or from the notice board of the bank and or official notice board.But in the present case complainant did not get the same from the notice board of the op.But op has challenged that complainant never went to the bank for such information.But it is the common practice of the bank and then officers not to entertain any customer of any institution whose general transaction is very poor.But even a begger knows very well that Bank Managers are very busy to behave with business men because their transaction is heavy and those business men obliges bank officer daily or they are very pioneer customers of the bank and they give all information to them, but not the poor customers what happened in this case. Might be it is our impression which may touch the sentiment of the bank’s officer.But practically situation is such for which we cannot keep ourselves mum for which we have expressed not on the basis of the complainant’s version, but it is our acquired experience what we have gathered personally and also by handling huge number of cases.In this context we are referring very serious comment of Hon’ble Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Hon’ble Justice Altanas Cam in his Judgement which was passed just before His retirement that is communicated in so many manners that banks are not placing their documents either to customers or to the court or any Administrative Tribunal intentionally and that is the position of the banks of India.
No banking authority challenged that when Hon’ble Supreme Court noted their observation as made in the judgement.No doubt in the present case our view is supported by that judgement.We have gathered after handling so many cases and the present case that bank employees and their officers are there only for showing their presence, but they are not cooperating with customer for solve their problem.Major attitude of the bank officer is reflected in this case and also reflected in the complaint.But invariably this attitude should be changed, otherwise days will come when consumers at large shall have to form a protest to close the bank so Bank to serve the customers at first otherwise that days are not far off and if that situation comes, then what the banking authority shall have to do.
In the above situation we are directing all the bank staff, authorities to amend their behavior, conduct as bank employees at fist and before entering into the bank premises, they shall have to count that it is their duty to serve the customers, whatever may be the status of the customers at first, because service is prime consideration of the corporate authorities to the customers and that is the basic work of any employee.For various reasons bank employees are raising their hands for their hike of salary but not they are united or raising their hands with their slogan on the street with placard for saving the consumer at first, consumers are their only capital.But in place of that they are trying to defy the customers whose accounts are found poor and they are very interested about the loan case and they issued current account because bank shall be benefited for that and this is the present banking culture.
But considering the present bank service we want to ventilate the situation of Greece which shall reflect the conduct of the bank how and what manner the bank shall have to control their transaction.Financial situation of Greece failed to granting loan to the borrower without any security or ascertaining any property and assets etc. very recently after studying some books on economics particularly consumer economic we have gathered that the present situation of overall Banks in India is very much irritating because loan has been granted to big business men or etc. without keeping property as security and in many cases after sanction of the loan, the lonee member has not taken any step to construct such project and has not paid any money and thereafter he is loitering, even after implementation of the SARFEASI Act,
Practically as per direction of the Supreme Court that Act came into force when the bank is unable to release the total amount which has been sanctioned as a loan and question of realising interest is far off.Any day bankruptcy shall be found in India and that is not far off.Truth is that a bank is a bank of consumer or the customer but not of the staff and officer but that attitude, behavior, corporate responsibility is no where and for which BANDHAN has been registered as a Bank by the RBI on the ground that this institution has served the poorer section of people for increasing their income and fund and that institution is no doubt private oriented institution that means that authority or their board took such economic theorization and such responsibility in their shoulder to save the consumer and to serve the consumer.
No doubt many banking organisations are established but fact remains that each and every one who are working at their different places must have their some responsibilities to discharge their duties, in this case it is found that no bank has followed that path for which this complainant has appeared before this Forum for redressal.
Considering the entire fact, we find that practically deduction is made and that is admitted position.But what prevented the op to supply the information to the complainant by producing the regulations in support of the fact of deduction of such amount no doubt such sort of conduct on the part of the op is a negative attitude and negligent service when RBI has already instructed by guidelines that customers’ rights must be properly saved.
In the result, this complaint is disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest without any cost.But we are directing the ops to send all information regarding deduction to the complainant what the complainant as customer’s right is entitled to get and bank Manager is legally bound to supply it and it must be supplied along with supportive documents that it is the guideline of the RBI and that shall be supplied to the complainant within one month.
At the same time this SBI Banking Authority is hereby directed to be more cautious in future and train up the staff to learn about corporate banking code and also to realise the consumer grievance and to ask the officers and to save the consumer.If it is not properly practiced by the bank administration, the entire situation shall be in turmoil and the poorer section of the customers shall have to revolt against Bank for their negative attitude.
Send a copy of this order to the Regional Office of SBI at once for taking such step.
