FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Smt. SAHANA AHMED BASU, Member,
The case of the Complainants, in brief, is that Complainants have a joint Savings Account with the OP2 being S/B A/C No.1665101006949. Last transaction made from the said Account on 27/03/2019. Due to non-operative for a long time said account has been declared Dormant by the OPs. Thereafter to regularize the said Account Complainant No.2 visited office Op2 carrying all necessary documents as instructed by the OP2. Till date the said Account has not been regularized. Complainant No.2 went to the office of the OP2 time and again but every time he has been returned for different excuse.at last on 18.10.2021the Complainant No.2 sent an e-mail to OPs attaching the PDFs of first page of the Savings account Pass Book, self-attested documents along with a letter dated 16/10/2021 and RBI guidelines with regard to dormant account which was duly received bythe OPs. Till date nothing fruitful happened. Finding no other alternatives Complainants knocked the door of this Commission.
The instant consumer complaint is contested by the OPs by filing WV contending inter alia that the present Complaint is not maintainable in as much as the same is false, frivolous and misconceived. The case of the OPs is that the Complainants were duly informed by the OPs about the Account in question being dormant due to non-use for a long time. It is also informed the Complainants that all the account holders have to be present physically to provide their KYC and after verification of the KYC the Dormant Account will be operative. But Complainants willfully failed and neglected to be present at the bank for said verification. As per RBI guideline for the KYC verification customer is required to be physically present with all necessary documents. Therefore the Complaint Petition is liable to be dismissed.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainants have advanced the case by adducing relevant evidences and documents. Per contra, OPs did not rely upon any documents. We have gone through all the evidences and documents on record and gave a thoughtful consideration to the entire fact.
Evidently complainants are holding Savings Account being SB/No. 1665101006949 under OPs since 23/05/2011. There is also no doubt that the said Account has become Dormant due to non - withdrawal. Ld. Advocate for the Complainants alleged that as per instruction of the OP2 the Complainant NO.2 physically visited the office of the OP2 on 23/08/2021, 16/09/2021 and 16/10/2021 along with all necessary duly self-attested documents of all Account Holders but each time he was turned away by the officials of the OP2 on various pretexts. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant that as per RBI Guidelines it was the absolute responsibility of the OPs to make the Account Holders aware before declaring the said Account as Dormant.In this connection Ld. Advocate for the Complainants annexed the RBI Guidelines dated 18/02/2009 issued under Memo No. RBI/2008-2009/386RPCD.CO.RF.BC.NO.89//07.38.01/2008-2009 in respect of Unclaimed Deposits and Inoperative /Dormant Accounts in Bank. On perusal of the said documents it is found that:
- Banks should make an annual review of accounts in which there are no options (i.e. no credit debit other than crediting of periodic interest or debiting of service charges) for more than one year. The banks may approach the customers and inform them in writing that there has been no operation in their accounts and ascertain the reasons for the same. In case the non-operation in the account is due to shifting of the customers from the locality, they may be asked to provide the details of the new bank accounts to which the balance in the existing account could be transferred.
- If the letters are returned undelivered, they may immediately be put on enquiry to find out the whereabouts of customers or their legal heirs in case they are deceased.
Ld. Advocate for the OPs argued that the Complainants were informed through telephone about the said Account being Dormant due to non-use of the said Account for a long period and also informed the Complainants that all the Account Holders have to be physically present to provide their KYC. In this context our considered view is that verbal communications have no value in the eyes of the Law. Therefore we are not inclined to consider this submission. In this regard Ld. Advocate for the OPs also referred the point viii of the above mentioned RBI Guidelines dated 18/02/2009. On scrutiny of the said record we noticed that it is stated in the Point viii of the said document that:
Operations in such accounts may be allowed after due diligence as per risk category of the customer. Due diligence would mean ensuring genuineness of the transaction, verification of the signature and identity, etc. However, it has to be ensured that the customer is not inconvenienced as a result of extra care taken by the bank.
It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate for the OPs that there is a scope for misuse of KYC documents to bank branches towards verification of KYC and therefore while obtaining the documents from the customer some procedures are exercised by the OPs as precautions like (1) signature of the Account Holder of the original documents is to be obtained on the copy of the documents with date, mentioning the purpose for which the said copy of documents were submitted and(2) Official receiving the copies should verify the same with that of the originals and ensure the genuineness of the copies produced and record that the fact of such verification on the copy of the documents with noting, original verified with full signature and date.
On travelling through the material documents annexed by the Complainants it is found that several attempts were made to resolve the dispute on the part of the Complainants by submitting letter dated 16/10/2021 along with Xerox copy of Aadhar Cards , Voter IDs, Pan Cards and sending email dated 18/02/2021to the OPs. On the other hand, OPs are fully aware that they are under obligation toresolve the dispute by making said account operative which has been lying with them. No such document has been furnished by the OPs from which it can established that in respect of a Joint Account each Account Holder is to be physically present at the bank. Moreover, there is a clear instruction from the RBI in the Point viii of the RBI Guidelines dated 18/02/2009 issued under Memo No. RBI/2008-2009/386 RPCD.CO.RF.BC.NO.89//07.38.01/2008-2009 in respect of Unclaimed Deposits and Inoperative /Dormant Accounts in Bank upon which Ld. Advocate for the OPs relied that: It has to be ensured that the customer is not inconvenienced as a result of extra care taken by the bank. Thus, the OPs are deficient in rendering service, and in fact, remaining adamant not to accept Complainant’s letter dated 16/10/2020 along with all necessary documents as per their requirements is undoubtedly a gesture of gross negligence on the part of the OPs. Complainant cannot wait indefinitely to get the Account in question to be operative. Complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and harassment. To get the relief, complainant has to wage a long drawn and tedious legal battle.
In the result, the Complaint Petition is allowed on contest against the OPs with a following direction:
- OPs are directed to regularize the said Bank Account of the Complainants from the dormant stage as per RBI Guidelines dated 18/02/2009 issued under Memo No. RBI/2008-2009/386 RPCD.CO.RF.BC.NO.89//07.38.01/2008-2009 in respect of Unclaimed Deposits and Inoperative /Dormant Accounts in Bank.
- OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of 20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.
- The abovementioned payment should be made within 45 days from the date of passing this order.
Liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution, if the OP transgress to comply the order.
Copy of the Judgment be given to the parties as per rules
