Delhi

North East

CC/509/2015

Yudhvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

08 Apr 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 509/15

 

In the matter of:

	Sh. Yudhvir Singh S/o Sh. Beg Ram R/o A-42, North Ghonda Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1         2	Branch Manager State Bank of India, Ghonda Branch Ghonda Delhi-110053   Regional Manager (Region-1) State Bank of India, Region-1 DZO-1 3rd Floor, ‘A’-Block, 11-Sansad Marg New Delhi-110001	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

28.12.2015 08.04.2019 08.04.2019

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The brief fabric of facts, on which the case revolves is that the complainant has a current account bearing no. 30639684038 with OP1 bank and is KYC compliant as per form filled by complainant on 12.10.2015. On the said date and date thereafter i.e. 13.10.2015, when the complainant approached OP1 bank for getting demand draft made, the officials of OP1 not only declined to prepare the same on the pretext that the concerned machine was out of order but also did not provide him the complaint register which was given to complainant after much insistence and persistence on which register / consumer complaint form, he registered his complaint against OP1 bank for having misbehaved with him and not preparing his DD. The complainant had to call up 100 number for PCR. The complainant is further aggrieved against OP on 13.10.2015, when the complainant issued a cheque bearing no. 188779 of Rs. 19,000/- from his current account maintained with OP1 in favour of one Rajwati for crediting the said amount in her account but the OP1 dishonored the said cheque vide returned memo 13.10.2015 for the reason “KYC non compliant” despite complainant already having completed his KYC on 12.10.2015 itself. The complainant again issued another cheque bearing no. 188780 dated 18.11.2015 for a sum of Rs. 7,000/- in favour of one  Ghanshyam Pal but the said cheque was also returned dishonored by OP1 vide return memo for reason “non KYC compliant” and “non CTS cheque and mutilated cheque”. The complainant issued a legal notice to OP1 for the above dishonored cheque on 14.10.2015 and written complaints to OP2 (regional office of OP1) dated 16.10.2015 and 17.11.2015 but OP1 never acted thereupon. The complainant has further stated that the OP vide letter dated 26.11.2015 to the complainant had honored a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- issued by complainant to avoid any inconvenience to complainant which clearly shows their whimsical and arbitrary conduct and functioning. Therefore the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint alleging deficiency of service against the OPs for not preparing his DD and honoring the cheque issued by him despite his account being KYC compliant which has caused him financial and mental and physical harassment and prayed issuance of direction against the OPs to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the same.
2. Complainant has attached copy of KYC form, copy of customer complaint form dated 13.10.2015 and 14.10.2015, copies of cheques bearing no 188779 and 188780 issued by complainant and dishonored by OP1 vide  returned memos dated 13.10.2015 and 18.11.2015, copy of legal notice dated 14.10.2015 to OP1 by complainant, copy of complaints dated 16.10.2019 and 17.11.2015 by complainant to OP2, letter dated 26.11.2015 by OP2 to complainant and copy of statement of account for  current account held by complainant with OP1 for the period 01.01.2014 to 21.12.2015.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 08.01.2016. OP entered appearance and filed written statement on 22.04.2016 in which it took the preliminary objection that the complaint filed by the complainant in his individual capacity is not maintainable on ground that complainant is one of the partners of M/s Udai Store, a partnership firm which is holding the said current account with the OP bank and therefore the complaint not having been filed by the partnership firm is liable to dismiss outright. The OP while admitting the factum M/s Udai Store a partnership firm of complainant and Ms Pooja holding current account with itself,  took the objection that despite mandatory requirement of KYC updation which the complainant was advised to comply with as per RBI guidelines, the complainant failed to do so and instead has been pressurizing OP bank to bow down to his dictates and whims by making falls allegations in the present complaint and approaching police and higher authority of OP1 i.e OP2. OP1 urged that the complainant has not deposited copy of partnership firm, ID of his partner Ms. Pooja, PAN of partners and registration of firm with OP1 which were mandatorily required. OP1 further submitted that the complainant has been making large transactions in Lakhs through his current account contrary to statement made that he has not been making transactions above Rs. 50,000/- during last 2-3 years. Regarding the complainant’s allegation of non preparation of demand draft, the OP1 submitted that on 12.10.2015 when the complainant had approached OP1 bank for preparing DD, the printer was out of order and complainant was advised to approach the nearby Yamuna Vihar Branch of OP but the complainant was insistent that OP1 branch only should prepare the DD and starting raising irrelevant queries. OP1 submitted that DDs are not prepared manually and the electronic system on which the bank business is dependent carries risk of sudden failure or break down beyond control of human power and such system does not accept manual inscription for DD but the complainant was being obstinate despite OP1 having informed him that an expert engineer has been called from HCL to repair the printer and the same would take time. OP1 denied any misbehavior or refusal by its officials to prepare the DD. OP1 has submitted that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant against OP for having asked him to come in queue for his banking work and to get his complete KYC updated. The OP countered the averment of complainant of having submitted his complete KYC by stating that he has not submitted complete detail thereof because of which his cheques in question of Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- were returned with relevant memos and the reason for return were also made known to the complainant and was asked to submit his complete KYC but he did not do so and insisted upon OP1 branch to consider KYC being complete on basis of documents already submitted. OP1 further alleged that the complainant did not submit ITR with the bank but still the OP always provided information to the complainant on his RTI applications upto the appellate level. Lastly, OP1 submitted that it approved a cheque of Rs. 10,000/- issued by complainant to keep good harmony with its valued customers despite complainant’s KYC still not being completed but it is not to allow to complainant to take advantage of his own wrong, since the OP1 has always been discharging its function as per banking guidelines in all fairness. OP therefore prayed for dismissal of complaint on grounds of no deficiency of service in its part and no entitlement to the complainant for any consequent damages.
4. OP has attached certified of statement of account of complainant’s partnership firm for the period 09.01.2009 to 12.03.2016 highlighting high value transaction, copy of  KYC guidelines issued by RBI highlighting requirements of documentations of partnership firm account, copy of KYC application form format with accompanying instruction / cheque list, copy of affidavit of complainant and Ms Pooja, copy of account opening form of Ms Pooja, copy of letter dated 26.11.2015 issued by OP to complainant in reply to his letter dated 16.10.2016 and copy of ombudsman report dated 07.12.2015.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by complainant in rebuttal to the defence taken by the OP and in reiteration / reaffirmation of allegation leveled against the OPs in his complaint being based on true and correct facts entitling him to relief. The complainant submitted that he being one of the partners of M/s Udai Store has right to file the present complaint individually and denied having submitting incomplete KYC or pressurizing OP1 bank to prepare demand draft or having filed the present complaint to take undue advantage of his wrong since he had furnished all requisite documents regarding his KYC to the OP but OP is taking false plea to harass and humiliating the complainant by returning his valid cheques without any valid and legal reasons causing loss of reputation to the complainant.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and OP respectively to reemphasis their respective grievance and defence.
7. Written arguments were filed by both the parties to buttress / reinforce their respective stands. Complainant filed copy of PCR / police complaint lodged by him on 13.09.2015 against OP. complainant placed reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in SBI Vs R.S. Sukhija II (2013) CPJ 410 (NC) and Syndicate Bank Vs Kamal Kishore Sharma II (2014) CPJ 550 (NC) where Hon'ble National Commission had held the bank deficient in service giving wrong information about credit of cheques in complainant’s account.
8. OP urged that complainant has never submitted the partnership deed of M/s Udai Store with OP bank till date and filed copy of RBI circular bearing no. RBI/2014-15/269 dated 21.10.2014 regarding KYC compliance and directions to partially freeze non KYC complient account since their vulnerable money laundering activities in support of its action taken for dishonor of cheques of the complainant.
9. We have heard the arguments advanced by the both parties and given our thoughtful consideration to the documentary evidence placed on record.
10. Two key issues have emerged for consideration / adjudication in the present complaint

1. Firstly whether the complaint is maintainable in having being filed in individual capacity of the complainant despite him being an account holder of OP1 bank by virtue of being one of the account holding partner of the partnership firm M/s Udai Store alongwith Ms Pooja
2. Secondly, whether the OP bank was deficient in service in not preparing the DD of the complainant and dishonoring the cheques in question issued by the complainant and relief if any.

As regards the first issue, undisputedly the complainant was operating a current account with OP1 through a partnership firm M/s Udai Store. The complaint was filed singly by the complainant against the OPs. The Hon'ble National Commission in Vipin Batra Vs State Bank of India decided on 28.05.2015 in RP no. 3547/2008 held bank grossly deficient in service in having converted a partnership into sole proprietorship in its book on the basis of letter written by wife who was part of a partnership firm with her husband but due to marital discord between them had written such a letter to the bank which had only her signature attested thereon and not that of her husband i.e. the complainant. The bank was held deficient in service having ignored the fact of a single signature attested letter and was asked to pay Rs. 5 lakhs as damages to the complainant. In the present case the cheques issued by the complainant are executed in the name of partnership firm Pooja and Yudh Veer Singh, thereby being issued from the partnership firm. Therefore keeping in view the law settled that for all partnership related documentation, both partners have to be joint signatories thereto, the present complaint could not have been filed solely by the complainant and therefore this issue is decided against the complainant on grounds of infirmity in the complaint.

As regards the second issue, the complainant has not filed or placed on record any documentary record to rebut the allegation of OP1 or establish beyond doubt that he and / or his partner had submitted complete KYC documents as per mandatory requirements of RBI with OP1 since there is not partnership deed, registration certificate and other relevant documents filed by the complainant with OP1 before October 2015 or thereafter which is the period when the dispute arose between the parties till filing of the complaint in December 2015. With respect to non preparation to DD, the complainant was advised to approach the nearby branch of OP1 since as rightly urged by the counsel for the OP1 all banking systems are electronically operated and beyond manual control and therefore failure or breakdown in any such systems is not subject to human intervention. In the present case, the failure to render service by OP1 was on account of factures beyond its control. Therefore, after due appreciation of material on record, RBI guidelines for KYC non compliant accounts, this issue is also decided against the complainant.

11. Having exhaustively dealt with the present complaint and pleadings and arguments placed before us supported by documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that no claim for compensation can be sustained in favour of against the OP. The judgment relied upon by the complainant are not applicable in the present case. We therefore dismiss the present complaint as devoid of merit no order as to cost.
12.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
13.   File be consigned to record room.
14.   Announced on  08.04.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member