Orissa

Cuttak

CC/269/2022

Ladukeswar Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

21 Mar 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C. No.269/2022

 

Sri Ladukeswar Jena,

S/o: Sri Jhadeswar Jena,Power of Attorney Holder

For and on behalf of his old aged father

Sri Jhadesswar Jena,

Resident of At:Arunodaya Nagar(P.C.Sarkar Lane),

P.O: Arunodaya Markeet,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

Pin-753012,Odisha.                                                             ... Complainant.

 

                                                Vrs.

1.        Kotak Mahindra Bank,Cuttack Branch Office,

Plot No.6,Ground Floor, Arunodaya Nagar,

Badambadi Colony,Town/Dist:Cuttack,

Pin-753012,Odisha, represented by

Its Branch Manager.

 

2.       Managing Director,

Kotak Mahindra Bank,Head Office:27 BKC,

G-Block,Bandra Kurla Complex,

Bandra( E),Mumbai-400051,Maharastra,India.                            ... Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

             Date of filing:     31.12.2022

Date of Order:   21.03.2024

 

For the complainant:            Mr. A.K.Samal,Adv . & Associates.

For the O.Ps.             :            None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member                                        

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that his father Jhadeswar Jena due to his old age was having amnesia for which the present complainant Ladukeswar Jena being the son had obtained power of attorney from his father Jhadeswar Jena.  On 2.10.2022 the complainant and his inmates could locate 8 number of TDRs from the locker of iron almirah as obtained by his father Jhadeswar Jena which were opened on 11.6.2005 and 31.8.2007 at the then “ING Vysya Bank Ltd.” which is now “Kotak Mahindra Bank”.  After getting said original 8 number of TDRs, the complainant had met O.P no.1 in order to ascertain the status of those since because there was instruction of renewal of said TDRs on maturity for the same period.  As because the O.Ps could not provide the details of the said 8 number of term deposit receipts instantly, they  took time and ultimately they intimated the complainant that the status of those 8 number of TDRs is reflected in the bank record as “closed”.  Being dissatisfied and apprehending manipulation/mischief by the Bank officials and since because they could not provide further informations, the complainant apprehended that the money as deposited by his father was embezzled by the officers of the bank for which he had issued a pleader’s notice to them and ultimately has filed this case seeking detailed informations as regards to closure of TDRs and alternatively claimed  the total maturity amount of the said 8 number of TDRs amounting to Rs.5,72,038/- alongwith interest as accrued thereon till the total amount is quantified from the O.Ps.  The complainant has further sought for direction to the O.Ps to pay compensation to him to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- towards his mental agony and harassment and due to gross deficiency in their service as well as unfair trade practice as adopted by them.  He has also prayed for cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- from the O.Ps and has further prayed for any other order as deemed fit and proper.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has affixed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Having not preferred to contest this case, both the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dated 25.4.2023.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, for the sake of convenience, point no.ii is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the complaint petition, the written notes of submissions filed from both sides, the evidence affidavit filed from the side O.Ps as well as the documents as available in the case record, it is admitted fact that the complainant’s father Sri Jhadeswar Jena had obtained 8 number of TDRs from the ING Vysya Bank.  The present complainant is the son of said Jhadeswar Jena.  He has filed the present case by virtue of power of attorney executed by his father in his favour.  As such the case filed by the present complainant is maintainable.  It is admitted fact that the ING Vysya Bank Ltd. merged with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.  The complainant’s father had obtained 8 numbers of TDRs from the ING Vysya Bank; such are Rs.84,040.34, Rs.60,805.17, Rs.84,039.48 in three different Accounts having No.545092041033, 545092041044, 545092041055 respectively on 11.6.2005 in “ADR PRASHANTI DEPOSIT” scheme as well as had deposited Rs.65,720.98, Rs.59,256.40, Rs.59,257.43, Rs.59,256.40, Rs. Rs.59,257.43 on five different accounts having no.545092057654,545092057643,545092057621,545092057610,545092057599 respectively on 31.8.2007 in “ADR General Deposit” scheme of O.Ps.  There is instruction of automatic renewal on the maturity in the Deposit Confirmation Certificates/TDRs.  It is alleged by the complainant that due to amensia, his father could not encash the TDRs as obtained by him and only on 2.10.2022 the complainant and his inmates traced the said original TDRs from the locker of iron almirah in their house.  On enquiry about said TDRs, the O.Ps replied that those TDRs are closed.  Thereafter, the complainant sought information about the details of closure of said TDRs and to whom the maturity amount was paid but the O.Ps did not cooperate with him.  Finally, the complainant had issued advocate’s notice to the O.Ps on 03.12.2022 as the O.Ps did not give details of closure of the said TDRs.  The O.Ps after getting advocate’s notice replied to the complainant vide their letter dt.30.1.2023.  In the said letter the O.Ps have taken a plea that in view of the R.B.I guidelines confidential information cannot be given to other person except any direction of any Regulatory/Statutory Authority or by Court of Law.   It reveals from the said letter that the O.Ps would share informations of closure of TDRs only after receipt of the order/direction of any Court of Law or by the direction of any Regulatory/Statutory Authority.

Due to non-filing of the written version, the O.Ps have been set exparte.  However, they have filed evidence affidavit as well as written notes of submission.

It is stated by the O.Ps that the complainant has not produced copy of the Power of Attorney to them.  It is stated by them that after receiving legal notice dt.21.2.2022, they have replied on 30.1.2023 stating therein that the information as sought by the complainant cannot be provided to the complainant in view of the RBI guidelines of information confidentiality and also stated that in absence of the satisfactory documentary proof to accept that he is entitled to obtain confidential information of bank account of Sri Jhadeswar Jena, customer of their bank, they cannot provide the information as sought by the complainant.  But in the evidence affidavit, the O.Ps have taken additional plea of year old accounts/ informations as well as purging of the data.  It is stated by the O.Ps in their evidence affidavit that the matter relates to the year 2004,2006 & 2007 and as per the prevention of Money Laundering Act,2002 they are not bound to maintain such account which is  more than a period of 5 years old.  It is admitted by the O.Ps that the father of the complainant had obtained 8 numbers of TDRs.  It is stated by them that ING Vysya Bank Ltd. merged with the Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. in the year 2015 and again has stated that merged in the year 2004 or in the year 2006.  The O.Ps are in doubt in which year, the ING Vysya Bank Ltd. merged.  The O.Ps in their evidence affidavit has mentioned the details of account number of the complainant’s father such as  account opening date and account closing date in respect of the said 8 numbers of TDRs.  On comparison of the copy of the TDR certificate/ deposit confirmation certificate with the information furnished by the O.Ps, it is noticed that the dates as given by the O.Ps as opening of accounts does not tally with the opening dates of accounts in the certificates as filed by the complainant.  The O.Ps also do not dispute about the entries made in deposit confirmation TDR certificates.  The O.Ps are not consistent with their pleas.   Before filing of the case, the O.Ps had taken plea that due to  information confidentiality, informations of closure of accounts cannot be provided and had stated that only on direction of the Court or by Statutory authority they can give the information to the complainant. But in the evidence affidavit the O.Ps took additional plea and have stated  that the said information as sought by the complainant has been purged as it relates to more than five years as well as stated that as per Money Laundering Act,2002, they are not bound to maintain such account beyond five years.  This type of activities clearly reveals that the O.Ps have not come to this Commission in clean hand.  The O.Ps in their evidence affidavit has taken plea of Money Laundering Act,2002, which is not applicable in the present case.  The original TDR certificate/deposit confirmation certificates are with the complainant.  The O.Ps in their evidence affidavit neither has disputed such certificates nor clarified in what circumstances those certificates are with the complainant or with his father, when all the accounts are closed as alleged by them.  In view of the discussions as made above, the complainant being the Power of Attorney of his father is entitled to get the informations as regards to detailed information as regards to closure of  8 nos. of TDRs or alternatively he is entitled to get the maturity amount of the TDRs as deposited by the complainant’s father with the O.Ps.  The O.Ps have not filed their written version. As such, the plea taken by the complainant is deemed to be true.  Hence, this point goes in favour of the complainant.

Points no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is undoubtedly maintainable and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

ORDER

Case is allowed exparte against the O.Ps, who are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case.  The O.Ps are thus directed to give the detailed information about the closure as well as beneficiary if any, other than the father of the complainant, so also mode of payment in respect of 8 numbers of TDRs to the complainant, which were obtained by the father of the complainant from them failing which they are directed to pay the maturity amount of those TDRs alongwith  interest thereon @ 8% per annum from the respective date of maturity as mentioned in the certificates as filed by the complainant till the same are quantified.   The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment as well as another sum of Rs.20,000/-  towards his litigation expenses.  This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

            Order pronounced in the open court on this the 21^st day of March,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                            Member

 

                                                                                      Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                              President