This is a Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complaint Case in nutshell is that he is senior citizen and permanent resident of Malda, who opened a savings bank account at HDFC Bank, Malda Branch Bearing No. 14691530000665 having customer ID No. 37698070 in the year 2011 and he has operated the said account till the date of block of the account by the Bank Authority in December 10, 2018 total Rupees 69,2,379/- was lying in the said account idle and the Bank Authority has blocked the said account as hefty amount was lying there without citing any reasons or any order from any authority regarding blocking of the said account. The Complainant as per guidelines of Bank submitted the KYC documents to unblock the said account but Bank Authority still block the said amount causing serious harassment and financial crisis to the Complainant. As he could not operated the said account and for that reason his mother having age of 96 years has expired due to lack of fund on the part of Complainant for rendering proper treatment for his mother. Further, case is that he issued a cheque on 06.03.2019 to one M.K. Saha which was submitted for clearance and that cheque was dishonored imposing criminal liability upon the Complainant. So, he claims compensation Rupees 15 Lakh, cost of litigation of Rupees 5 Lakh and also an order for unblocking the account. The HDFC Bank has contested the case by filing Written Version and contended inter-alia that the Complainant opened the said account by submitting the PAN Bearing No. BTGBC 3087G as Sitaram Choudhury and supporting documents regarding his identification as Sitaram Choudhury was produced at the time of opening the account on 18.03.2011. Subsequently, it was detected that in the year 2012 the said Complainant by changing his name as Sitanath Choudhury opened another account Bearing No. 14691930001797 by producing a separate PAN Card in the name of Sitanath Choudhury. In the first account he disclosed his mother’s name as Girja Choudhury while in the second account 2012 he mentioned his mother’s name as Girja Devi and separate identity documents was also produced which was subsequently proved as fake ones. Later, the Complainant has opted PAN and Aadhar in respect of his account Bearing No. 1469153000665(first account). Keeping the PAN Card No. BTGBC 3084G and also by written request caused deletion of PAN No. ASIPC 3731E in respect of his second account. Under the scenario in view of the disparity and anomaly both the first account was blocked and the second account stands irregular and submission of two set of documents by one and the same individual Prima-facie makes the documents doubtful and suspicious which cannot be relatable on coming to know the truth. The further case of the Opposite Parties is that the O.P. Bank had very clearly communicated to the Complainant, their documentary requirements through Emails to the Complainant and the Complainant was also asked to submit the Income Tax returns since the financial year of 2009-10 up to date and the said requirements was not complied with on the part of the Complainant. The further case is that a huge amount was deposited in the first account which was very suspicious nature and Bank came to know after inquiry that the Complainant accumulated the fund in the said account by acting as a Commission Agent of Punjis Scam like Rose Valley and in order to defraud the Income Tax Authority the Complainant intentionally used the fake documents and for that reason the Bank as a reputed financial institution has blocked the said account to remove the clouds and there was no deficiency of service on the part of the Bank and the frivolous complaint should be dismissed. The Bank has contested the case through Ld. Advocate Smt. Sarbari Dutta. Ld. Advocate Mr. J. Choudhury has represented the Complainant. The Complainant Sitaram Choudhury and one Malay Saha has been examined in this case as P.W.1 and 2. The questionnaires was submitted to them on the part of the Bank and they have replied the said questionnaires. On the part of the HDFC Bank beside the documentary evidences, the Branch Manager of HDFC, Malda Mr. P. Patil has recorded the evidences by swearing affidavit and questionnaires was submitted to him on the part of Complainant which was replied in due course. Thereafter, the argument of both sides was heard.
Points for decisions:
- Is the Consumer Complaint maintainable?
- Is the Sitaram Choudhury is Consumer under the Provision of C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has there any cause of action to sue?
- Has there any deficiency of service on the part of the HDFC Bank (O.P)?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both sides and going through the pleadings and the material documents as well as on scrutinization of the evidences on record the Commission finds that S.R. Choudhury is a customer of HDFC Bank. Having two accounts lying in the said branch and his first account as remained blocked by the Bank Authority for which he has been debarred in operation of the said account and now he claims for unlocking the said account and prayed for compensation for his harassment for blocking the said account as well as he prays for a compensation for harassment and mental agony and for that reason the Commission finds that the Complainant has right cause of action as a customer of Bank and the relationship between the Bank and the Customer still in exist. Thus, the first three points are hereby answered in favour of the Complainant.
Point No. 4 and 5.
Admittedly, S.R. Choudhury is a resident of Malda. He opened a savings Bank Account in the HDFC Bank just after his retirement from West Bengal Health Service. After going through the Bank statements, it appears to us that since 2011 after opening the account he deposited huge amount in average three Lakh to four Lakh Per Month till 2013 and thereafter the deposit of said hefty amount become stopped. The Bank suspect that the account holder/Complainant has earned huge money as a Commission Agent from Punji Cheat Funds called Rose Valley and in order to the said huge amount of Commission on the Income Tax Authority, he has opened a separate account in the same Branch by using fake documents which he subsequently admitted before the Bank Authority by submitting the KYC and suspended the fake PAN Card which he used at the time of opening the second account. At the time of arguments Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Bank has no authority to call the Complainant to submit the Income Tax return in the year 2009-10 as because the account was opened on 18.03.2011. He further submits that the Complainant never received any Email from the Bank Authority for furnishing required documents. The Complainant was in dark while his account was blocked and he was not intimated in due time that while his account was blocked by the Bank Authority. He further submits that the Complainant being a senior citizen could not avail the money deposited in the said account and for that reason due to want of money the mother of the Complainant has expired. He further submits that even for dishonored of a cheque due to blockage of first account, the Complainant is facing a criminal liability and for that reason the Bank should be penalized and the Complainant should be compensated in a fair manner. Ld. Advocate of the Opposite Party during the course of argument mentions that the Bank has a wing to investigate formally about the customers while suspicious amounts are deposited in a Bank Account and the Bank Authority found that as per regulatory guidelines, Banks are under obligation to monitor transaction in the account of their customers which are not sync with the customer profile also due diligence to be carried out based on the authentic feedback and information coupled with appreciation of available evidences may act and restrict operations of account of the customer as a prudent banker under prudent Banking norms even without the order from any agency. In view of the obligation Bank has exercised in this case due diligent by closely examining the transaction carried out to ensure with the transaction are in sync with the profile. During such exercise the Bank has conduced a review of accounts in line with KYC and Anti Money Laundering Guidelines along with to comply with various regulatory prescriptions and for that reason Bank has advised the Complainant to furnish the details regarding purpose and reason of opening two accounts in two different names with different KYC documents. He was also asked to produce documentary details in order to prove his sources of funds. He was asked to furnish the Income Tax return since financial year 2009-10. The Complainant has failed to produce any such documents and for that reason the account was blocked. Ld. Advocate further says that during the course of interrogation between Bank Authority and the Complainant it was came out that the Complainant has earned huge money from money market company, Punji, Rose Valley and opted not to up to date PAN and Aadhar and he wanted to escape from Income Tax liability. She further submits that the Complainant used the HDFC Bank as a channel to perpetrate financial fraud and for that reason the Bank was bound to stop the operation of the account and for that reason the Bank has blocked the said account of the Complainant. After going through the Cross-examination of P.W. 1 it is found that the Complainant was asked whether he replied to the HDFC Bank’s email dated 14.02.2019. The Complainant intentionally avoids the said question by using an evasive answer by saying “I do not re-collect any such mail trail in my email account”. Here in this particular case it is become crystal clear that the Complainant since opening of first account accumulated huge fund in the said account by depositing 3 to 4 Lakh Per-month and it was continuing till 2013. We know very well that Rose Valley and other funds have come under the scanner of CBI, ED and other agencies since 2013 in West Bengal and they are trying to recover the fraud money earned by the Punji Scanners and thereafter funding huge amount in the first account of the Complainant remained stopped. The picture is very much clear to the affect that the Complainant has not come to this Commission in clean hands. We know very well the Consumer Protection Act was enacted for the purpose to protect the bonafide Consumers with an object of providing equitable reliefs. So, a customer/consumer who comes before the redressal agency should come clean hands. A man who claims equity should come with clean hands. But in this particular case the Complainant has lost the equitable light as because by opening second account in the said Bank by using fake identity cards and PAN Cards has defrauded the Banking System. Rather, he has avoided the responsibility to furnish the details before the Bank about the sources of income of the Complainant by which he has accumulated huge amount in the said account and he has not discharged the liability in a prudent manner. So, the Commission has no authority to compensate who has concealed certain facts before approaching the Commission. On the other hand, it is also established that the Income Tax Department has already merged the fake Pan Card of the Complainant with the original one and Bank also could not show any order from any appropriate agency regarding the block of the HDFC Bank account of the Complainant. The Bank also does not furnish any paper to prove that they have already intimated the Income Tax or other investigating agencies about the huge funds lying in the account of the Complainant and for that reason Bank has no reasonable excuse to block the account of the Complainant for an indefinite period. Thus, all the points are hereby determined. Therefore, that the Consumer Complaint is hereby disposed of to the affect that the Complainant does not deserve to get any relief through this Consumer Complaint under the Provisions of Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Hence, it’s ordered
That the Instant Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of the C.P. Act, 1986 is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. However, the HDFC Bank of Malda is hereby directed to unlock the blockage account of the Complainant Bearing No. 14691530000665 within a month, If the account is not suspended or blocked by any authority having jurisdiction to do the same. And the accrued interest since the date of blockage of the said account till the date of unlock to be credited in the said account as per existing rate of savings Bank’s interest within a month after doing all the essential formalities and observing the Bank regulations.
Let the copy of this order to be supplied to the parties free of cost.
