IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAMBALPUR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.60 OF 2015
Sri Santosh Kumar Dash, S/o.Narayan Chandra Dash,
aged about 40 years, resident of Dhanupali,
Po/Ps.- Dhanupali, Dist.- Sambalpur. …………..Complainant.
Vrs.
1. The Cluster Branch Manager, ICICI Bank,
Sambalpur, Paradise Chamber, 1st floor,
In front of Jagannath Temple, Budharaja,
Dist.- Sambalpur, Odisha.
2. Corporate Office, ICICI Bank,
At- ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra,
Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 ……………Opp. Party.
DATE OF ORDER :26.12.16
Complainant Advocate:- Prasanta Kumar Kar
Opp. Party No.1 & 2 Advocate:-Ashok Kumar Sahoo
P R E S E N T:
SHRI A.P.MUND, PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI K.D. DASH, MEMBER
AND
MRS S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER
:O R D E R:
SHRI A.P. MUND, PRESIDENT:- 1. The case of the Complainant is that he is a customer having a savings account with ICICI Bank, Sambalpur branch vide SB A/C No.019401514011.
2. That on dated 19.09.2015 (3rd Saturday) at about 02.05 P.M. while the complainant had been to the branch of Opposite party no.1 for depositing a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty
Contd…p 2.
-2-
thousand) only, the staff present in the cash counter by that time; refused to receive cash, saying that
Saturday is a half working day, hence the counter is closed. Then the Complainant approached Opposite party no. 1 to clarify the matter as because as per notification dated 28th August, 2015 of RBI, Reserve
Bank of India had advised all banks to observe public holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturdays of every month with effect from 1st September, 2015 and other Saturdays of the month as full working days. A copy of press release issued by RBI of said notification is filed here with as ANNEXTURE-2.
3. That in view of the above notification of Reserve Bank of India Opposite party no. 1 ought to have received cash, as that particular date was falling on 3rd Saturday of the month and was a full working day, but to utter surprise despite the complainant’s request and asking; pleading with opposite party no.1 about the recent notification of RBI, opposite party no.1 laughed at him and denied to receive cash.
An endorsement was made on the back side of the deposit slip for non acceptance of cash, and accordingly the cash Head put his signature and seal on the back side of the deposit slip. This was done in utter disregard to the direction issued by RBI.
4. That the complainant is a respectable, prestigious and known citizen of the locality and as opposite party no.1 abused and humiliated the complainant before the other customers present by that time and did not accept the cash, the prestige of the complainant lowered down before the estimation of other customers. He became a laughing stock.
5. That the complainant returned with severe mental agony, as a consequence, due to imbalance state of mind misplaced that packet containing the cash of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) somewhere, which caused a great financial loss to him as well.
6. That the complainant in this regard served a pleaders notice on dt.24.09.2015 seeking compensation from both the opposite parties.
7. That the opposite parties deliberately disobeyed the RBI notification, avoiding complainants request, abused him, and as a consequence caused him severe mental agony and great financial loss as well which is nothing but gross deficiency of service on their part and hence both are jointly and severally liable and accountable for the same, in the eye of law.
On the basis of the above, the complainant pleads that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) only for causing harassment, inconvenience and mental agony PLUS Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs fifty thousand) only for gross deficiency of service PLUS Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only for recovery of the amount lost due to non-acceptance and return of cash by the O.P. No.1 PLUS Rs.9,70,000/- (Nine lakhs seventy thousand) only, to the complainant.
Contd…p 3.
-3-
Documents relied on by the Complainant are as follows :-
1. Bank Pass book (ANNEXTURE-1)
2. RBI Press Release (ANNEXTURE-2)
3. Deposit slip (ANNEXTURE-3)
4. Advocate Notice (ANNEXTURE-4)
5. AD & Postal Receipts (ANNEXTURE-5)
8. The O.P.’s were duly served notice but they did not file their version before this Forum on the date fixed. After passage of 45 days when the O.P.’s did not file their version; they were set-ex parte on 6.6.2016. A date was fixed for ex parte hearing. This was only conducted by the Complainant’s Advocate on Dt. 17.8.2016. And the case was fixed for Order on Dt. 26.9.16.
9. That on Dt. 26.9.16 the Advocate for O.P.’s filed a petition praying to set aside the ex parte order. The complainant received copy and filed objection and the petition filed by O.P.’s was rejected and ex parte hearing was fixed on 3.11.16. His version along with documents was not accepted.
10. On 3.11.16 ex parte hearing was conducted as both parties were present. Argument was heard from both sides as O.P.’s Advocate participated in the argument.
11. The Advocate for complainant supported his case. He produced one Xerox copy of press release no. 2015-2016/528 which clearly supports the argument of the Complainant that the Bank will observe holidays on 2nd and 4th Saturday of every month and operate for full day on working Saturdays. The Advocate for O.P.s argued his case and cited one circular dt. July 1, 2013 which is not pertinent to this case. He also submitted a circular Dt. 28.8.2015. This is the same circular akin to the one filed by the Complainant.
13. There are two issues involved in this case. (i) Whether the Bank is to receive payment tendered by the complainant on the impugned date, (ii) If (i) is yes then; whether the Bank is to compensate the complainant for its refusal to accept tendered cash.
14 That on the basis of circular filed by both the parties Dt. 28.8.2015 it is clear that Banks are to operate for full day on working Saturdays. Hence the O.P.s are guilty of not accepting payment and they have willfully neglected their duty. Hence the first issue is answered in favour of the complainant. We are not convinced with the argument of Complainant that he out of imbalance of mind misplaced the packet containing the cash of Rs. 2,50,000/-. He also did not press this point.
Contd…p 4.
-4-
15. Regarding the second issues, the Advocate argued forcefully that the complainant is a respectable person and he was humiliated by the derisive language used by the Bank Employee. This was not countered by the O.P.’s Hence this issue is also answered in favour of the complainant. The O.P.’s and its employees must remember that they are a trust and dealing with public in the capacity of trustees. Unless they get deposit from the public they can -not run their Banking activities. Hence the O.P. must sensitize their employees and further they are not to misbehave with their customer and follow the direction of the RBI in Toto. They cannot be law unto themselves.
On the basis of the above and on our considered opinion the O.P.’s are guilty for not accepting tendered amount ; there by violating the RBI directives. As the amount was big, we accept the contention that the complainant must have faced constraints in keeping the amount for the next working day. The O.P. also misbehaved with the complainant and on both the counts we, on our considered opinion hold that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- will be sufficient enough to compensate the Complainant for the wrongdoing of the O.P.’s
Hence it is ORDERED that the O.P.’s are to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant within a month of passing of this order failing which they are to pay interest @ 12% from the date of order till payment.
-Sd/-
SHRI A.P.MUND
-Sd/- PRESIDENT.
MRS S. TRIPATHY, MEMBER. I agree.
-Sd/-
SHRI K.D. DASH,MEMBER. I agree.
-Sd/-
Dictated and corrected by me.
PRESIDENT.
