29.08.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

             Instant Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellant/Complainant challenging the judgment and order No.11 dated 26/12/2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum in Complaint Case No. 48 of 2014 allowing the complaint with the direction as under:-

            “That the Complaint case 48 of 2014 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP Bank with cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the consumer Welfare Fund. The petitioner is entitled to compensation for a sum of Rs.2000/-for such denial of service and Rs. 1000/-as litigation cost and Rs. 2000/- for harassment and mental agony and the OP Bank is to pay the total sum of Rs. 5,000/-to the petitioner and cost of Rs. 2000/-in favour of Consumer Welfare fund within 30 days from the date of this order failing the order would carry interest @9% per annum till full realization and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution.”

              The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Appellant/Complainant ,the holder of the Savings Bank Account bearing No20665491345 being maintained with the Respondent/OP submitted before the Respondent/OP on 01/11/2013 one cheque bearing No.378894 dated 01/11/2013 for an amount of Rs.25,000/- only for encashment.

              The Respondent/OP allegedly refused to make encashment of the cheque on the ground that the KYC details of the Account was not updated. The Appellant/Complainant’s repeated request for encashment of the cheque did not derive him any fruitful result. The appellant/Complainant, rather, was utterly misbehaved by the Respondent/OP, as alleged.

              The incident put the Appellant/Complainant in very critical and embarrassing circumstances as the money was badly needed by him in connection with his son’s marriage. The Appellant/complainant, being aggrieved with the aforesaid deficiency done upon him by the Respondent/OP, filed the complaint case which the impugned judgment and order relates to.

               We have heard the Appellant/Complainant in person and the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP.

              The Appellant/Complainant submitted that the Respondent/OP refused to pay him his own money through encashment of the cheque in question in respect of his savings Bank Account being maintained with the Respondent/OP. The reason that the Respondent/OP offered was that the KYC details of the Account were not updated.

              The Appellant/Complainant submitted further that he was put to very critical situation for not getting the money which he was badly in need of in connection with his son’s marriage.

               His repeated request for entertaining the cheque for encashment did not derive him any good result. He was rather very badly behaved by the Respondent/OP who asked him very rudely to be aware of the necessity of updating the K Y C on verification of circular to that effect from the office notice board which, on verification as advised, did not appear to have been displayed with any such notice.

               The Appellant/ Complainant drew the notice of the Bench to running page -18 being the excerpt of the Times Of India, the leading English daily, wherein it was reported that the Bank cannot freeze Account for non- furnishing the KYC.

               The Appellant/Complainant referred to the letter dated 28/11/2013, running page-17, of the Assistant General Manager, zonal Office, Allahabad Bank wherein the said Assistant General Manager regretted for the incident and confessed that the Branch Manager should have acted in a customer friendly manner.

           The Appellant/Complainant continued to submit that the Ld. District Forum appreciated the cause of his being aggrieved while allowing the complaint in the impugned order but was not justified in making the order for the amounts of the cost and compensation. A total amount of Rs. 5000/-, inclusive of the cost and compensation for denial of service and for harassment and mental agony which has been ordered by the Ld. District Forum, as submitted, was too meagre an amount compared to the harassment and humiliation that the Appellant/Complainant had to sustain. Moreover, as the Appellant/Complainant submitted, he had to incur a lot of expenditure for running his cases in the District Forum and State Commission. The ld. District Forum, as submitted, should have appreciated the economic hardship that the Appellant/Complainant had gone through in course of running the consumer cases while passing the impugned order.

         The Appellant/Complainant, with the above submission, prayed for the amount of cost and compensation to be enhanced.

         Heard the ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP. It was submitted that the Account in question was not having updated KYC. The Respondent/OP requested the Appellant/Complainant to update the KYC as per guidelines of the RBI. The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the updating of KYC ensures safety and security of the Accounts against any kind of fraud. Accordingly, the Managers of the Bank Branches were instructed to generate awareness amongst the customers about getting the benefit of making their accounts KYC enabled and getting the KYC updated regularly.

          The Ld. Advocate submitted further that the Appellant/Complainant, in its petition, prayed for a huge cost and compensation amounting to Rs. 5,00,000/-against the alleged deficiency of non-encashment of a cheque of Rs.25,000/- only. The reason for such an absurdly high claim has not been explained in the petition or in the argument made by him.

          The Ld. Advocate contended that there was, in fact, no deficiency at all on the part of the Respondent/OP which can make him liable to pay any cost or compensation.

          With the above submission, the Ld. Advocate prayed for the appeal to be dismissed.

          Perused the papers on record .Admittedly, a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- was placed before the Respondent/OP and admittedly the cheque was refused for encashment on the ground that the KYC details were not updated in respect of the S B Account of the Appellant/Complainant. No denial was there on the part of the Respondent/OP towards alleged refusal of non-encashment of the cheque in question. It, on the contrary, evolves from the letter dated 28/11/13, running page 17 of the Asst. General Manager that the behavior of the Respondent/OP was not customer friendly.

         The alleged non-encashment of cheque and thereby refusing a person to draw his own money on the eve of an important event of his son’s marriage is undoubtedly a matter of mental harassment and agony which the Appellant/Complainant had to pass through.

          The Respondent/OP’s sticking to the point of getting the KYC of the subject Account updated by its holder is fairly understandable. What is not understandable is the reason that led the Respondent/OP to refuse the encashment of the cheque and thereby preventing the Appellant/complainant from having his own money from his Account at a moment when the money was badly needed by him.  The Respondent/OP could not produce any order/circular of the competent authority speaking in favour of such action, nor did we find any similar document in the record that can justify the alleged action on the part of the Respondent/OP.

          The deficiency on the part of the Respondent/OP, in the light of the above, is well established. The compensation given by the Ld. District forum also appears to be very small compared to the magnitude of the deficiency and therefore, not acceptable to us.

          Hence, ordered that the Appeal is allowed in part. The Respondent/OP shall pay a compensation of Rs.12,000/- and a litigation cost of Rs.3000/- to the Appellant/Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which, interest @ 9%shall accrue on the total cost of Rs.15,000/-from the date of default till the amount is fully realized. The impugned judgment and order is modified accordingly.