REKHA GUPTA

                Revision petition no. 4696 of 2012 has been filed against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2012 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 413 of 2012.

2.     The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner/ complainant are that on 04.06.2010 the petitioner made an application for change of address, stating that petitioner was a senior citizen aged 67 years and after retirement the petitioner was staying with his son Anoop Kumar Prasad in Flat no. D 701, Kalpvrux, Gotri Main Road, Baroda – 390 021.

3.     The officials of the bank, i.e., the respondent – herein - refused to change petitioner’s permanent as well as the correspondence address vide letter dated 05.06.2010.  On 23.06.2010 the petitioner requested again clearly stating that as per the principles of natural justice it is his legitimate right to stay with his son in the house which has been registered in the name of petitioner’s son.

4.     In this regard, the petitioner had discussed the matter four – five times at different levels but petitioner’s request for change of address has neither been accepted nor any written reply has been given by the Bank.

5.     The petitioner was facing lot of difficulty in operating the Demat Account. The petitioner made an application addressed to the grievance cell of the Bank located at Kanjur Marg (E) Mumbai 400 001 vide letter dated 15/17.07.2010 through Gotri Branch of the Bank. The petitioner had learnt from an e-mail message dated 05.08.2010 that his application dated 15/17.07.2010 had not reached to the proper addressee so far. Meanwhile, the respondent Bank turned down the petitioner’s request vide their letter dated 23.07.2010.

6.     On 19.07.2010 the petitioner informed Mr Chakrabarty over phone that he had lost the following two depository instructions slips and hence the Bank should not honour the same.

1. Instruction slip no. AA 442910878
2. Instruction slip no. AA 442910879

Mr Chankrabarty replied that the Bank will not take any action on telephone and that the petitioner should visit the Branch and complete all necessary formalities in this regard.

7.     On 20.07.2010 the petitioner visited the Branch and wanted to complete the formalities in this regard. This time Mr Chakrabarty insisted for petitioner’s identity proof for complying with the above instructions. Since Mr Chakrabarty refused to take action on the basis of written request and insisted for identity proof, the petitioner lodged a complaint to this effect vide his letter dated 20.07.2010. Senior Manager Mr Chintan Trivedi justified Mr Chakrabarty’s action vide his letter dated 20.07.2010.

8.     On 31.07.2010 the petitioner informed Mr Trivedi vide his letter dated 31.07.2010 asking for identity proof was not required from a person who was regularly visiting the branch and whose identity was not a matter of dispute. Written instructions as stated in paragraph 6 of the Pass Book were sufficient for taking stop action, but the Bank has not taken action in this regard so far.

9.     The respondents were liable for unfair trade practice and negligence towards their customer under Consumer Protection Act. The petitioner therefore prayed as under:

1. To award Rs.50,000/- towards mental pain and agony to the petitioner;
2. To award Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses for this complaint;
3. Strong strictures to the bank so that it should not harass its customers in future; and
4. Any other justice and proper relief as the court deems fit to be granted to the petitioner.

10.    The respondent/ opposite parties in their reply stated that the petitioner had clearly accepted that the address he desired to be updated in his closed demat account was of the flat which was in the name of his son Mr Anoop Kumar Prasad and as such he did not / could not furnish the bank with any address proof in his name with address as flat no. D – 701, Kalpvrux, Gotri Main Road, Baroda, which he desired to be updated in his closed demat account. It was also stated that the petitioner had submitted a request for transfer-cum-closure request form for his demat on 21.01.2011 with reason being cited as “High Charges”. The said account was closed on 27.01.2011.

11.    Categorically we do not agree that Mr Chintan Trivedi, Sr Manager sighted any document issued by Executive Magistrate, Baroda as claimed by the petitioner nor the same was submitted with the change of address request on 04.06.2010 or subsequently.

12.    The respondent further brought to the notice of the Forum the Master Circular on Account opening, Version 2.0 as issued by NSDL on April 16, 2009 which stated that requirement of address proof in the name of the holder and as such copy of election card in the Anoop Kumar Prasad submitted as address proof with the change of address request on 04.06.2010 did not comply with the documentary requirement as prescribed by NSDL.

13.    The requirement of furnishing a valid address proof of new address in the name of the First/ Sole Holder in a Demat Account has been a mandatory requirement of NSDL for effecting change of address at the time the matter was lodged with the Forum. The petitioner refused to provide any address proof in his name, insisting that the respondents accept address proof in name of his son, Anoop Kumar Prasad, which the Bank has rightfully declined to accept and process as the same would have been in contravention of existing NSDL Bye Laws.

14.    The bank had also appraised the petitioner with the amendment in SEBI policy regarding acceptance of third party address as correspondence address vide SEBI Circular no. NSDL/ Policy/ 2010/0132 dated 15.12.2010. The Bank also shared the said circular with the petitioner and offered to change his correspondence address in tune with the amendment. The petitioner declined to get his correspondence address updated and instead opted to close his demat account vide transfer cum closure request form for his demat on 21.01.2011.

15.    The petitioner had written a letter addressed to the Grievance Cell and submitted at the Gotri Branch, the same was forwarded to the concerned officials at Mumbai. Since the dispute was at Vadodara, the letter was forwarded to the Branch for further action. The Bank had replied to the customer on 23.07.2010. The same had been collected by the petitioner on 27.07.2010. The bottom corner of all the bank’s correspondence with the petitioner contained the relevant e-mail id and the address of the Grievance Cell. Hence, the petitioner’s argument that he was not furnished with the address of Grievance Cell was not sustainable.

16.    The petitioner did visit the Branch personally on 20.07.2010 but categorically declined to furnish the required ID proof, insisting that ID proof was not required to be furnished by a person who regularly visited the Branch and whose identity was not a matter of dispute.

17.    The Bank did not dispute the identity of petitioner but they do insist on production of valid ID proof for verification and self-attested copy be attached with the Stop Request for process. The requirement was clearly mentioned in the Stop request form. As a customer of the Bank the petitioner was expected to co-operate and comply with all processes as laid down by the Regulatory Authorities and the Bank from time to time.

18.    The petitioner had in person discussed with the Bank officials and also wrote a letter in this regard on 20.07.2010. The Bank replied to him vide letter dated 20.07.2010 explaining to him the process/ formalities in detail and again requested him to submit stop request in person along with the valid ID proof immediately to enable the Bank to mark a stop to the two delivery instruction slip lost by the petitioner. The letter was personally collected by the petitioner from the Branch on 27.07.2010.

19.    The Bank has been consistent in communicating the rule position to the petitioner vide all its communications and in all personal interactions, which the petitioner was not willing to comply.        As such Bank cannot be held responsible for any wrong doing, agony or mental harassment as alleged by the petitioner.

20.    The petitioner was not willing to adhere to the mandatory process/ formalities as required for acceptance and process of his change of address request and stop request for delivery instructions slips and insists on the Bank to take action on the basis of improper and incomplete requests, which was not logical nor acceptable as Bank has to comply with regulations as defined by the various regulatory authorities.

21.    The bank has tried to co-operate with the petitioner to the maximum extent possible without contravening the bye-laws and regulations of the regulatory authorities. As such the Bank is not liable for any unfair trade practice and negligence towards the customer under Consumer Protection Act as alleged by the petitioner and is also not liable to any compensation or legal expenses in this matter.

22.    The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vadodara (‘the District Forum’) vide its order dated 19.03.2012 had dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

23.    Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission also dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 27.09.2012. While dismissing the appeal the State Commission has observed as under:

“Now for change of address the opponents have clearly stated in their reply date 23.07.2010 page no. 17, that:

Please refer to the set procedure/ formalities as per below to be completed by the account holder in person for submission of change of address request.

Relevant request has to be signed by all the holders of the demat account.

At least one of the holders of the demat account to visit the bank’s branch. In case the request is sent through an authorised representatives, his/ her signature should be duly attested by all the holders of the demat account.

Please submit the copy of the identity and address proof as per details given below along with the ‘original’ per verification.

        Proof of identity of all the holders:

        Proof of new address of the first holder:

Please submit the copy of identity proof along with the ‘original’ for verification.

The requirement of proof of New Address mandatory in the name of the sole holder has been communicated to you again during your Branch visits and in your numerous interactions with the Bank officials.

You shall appreciate that we as a Bank/ DP have to ensure compliance to various Bye-Laws/ Regulations as prescribed by NSDL and SEBI from time to time and the same is not possible without your co-operation.

Thus, in reply of the said letter the opponent have submitted the evidence for the procedure which the complainant has to follow. We have seen the circular published by the NSDL/ SEBI and we are declaring/ stating that the said reply of the opponent were as per the facts and instructions given in the NSDL/ SEBI. Thus, the opponents have not shown any negligence in their service or it would not to be sated that the opponents have denied wrongly. This is because, the procedure which one has to follow/ comply with for the change of address is clearly mentioned in the above said circular’s instructions. That means, there is no question of age or more complications/ problems or to comply with the principle of natural justice. Therefore, there is no truth in the first issue. As there is a question of second issued, the opponents have replied by their letter dated 20.07.2010, which is on record, and in which they have stated as under:

“While we empathies with your concerns in your captioned letter, we request our inability to marks stop transfer of delivery instructions slips on the basis of telephonic request.

Please refer to the set procedure/ formalities as per below to be completed the account holder in person for effecting request for stop marketing o delivery instruction slip.

At least one of the holders of the demat account to visit the Bank’s Branch.

Relevant request has to be signed by all the holders of the demat account.

Please submit the copy of the identity proof along with the ‘original verification’.

Mr Rajib Chakrabarty, Incharge Depository Operations was rightfully following the set procedure when he advised you to complete the above-mentioned formalities in person to enable the bank/ DP to exercise your requests.

We, therefore, request you to kindly visit the branch personally and complete the necessary formalities to enable us to do needful.

On behalf of the opponents their learned advocate has produced one Form of the opponent on page no. 7, which is regarding stop instruction and all the instructions given in that form are stated by the opponents in their letter dated 20.07.2010. We have mentioned those instructions as above and looking to that also, it would be not possible for the opponents to agree with the complainant. It is the fact that the form which is produced before this Forum is necessary for Bank’s business and it is kept after considering above-mentioned instructions and for the safety of the consumer, which cannot be compromised. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove that the opponent had shown any negligence and loss is providing their services as demanded by the complainant.

Therefore, we would not be agreed with the complainant’s case that the Hon’ble Forum would had to grant his complaint and in the same way this appeal would also be granted.

We agreed with the arguments of the opponent’s learned advocate that the Hon’ble Forum had dismissed the complaint appropriately. Considering all the above mentioned facts this appeal is eligible to be dismissed by passing the order below:

        The present appeal is hereby dismissed.

The order passed by the District Forum in complaint no. 645 of 2010 dated 19.03.2012 is kept as it is. No order towards cost”.

24.    Hence, the present revision petition.

25.    We have heard the petitioner in person and also the learned counsel for the respondent and have carefully gone through the records of the case.

26.    On perusal of exchange of correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents, it would show that the respondents kept on reiterating that as per the circulars of NSDL and SEBI that there was a prescribed procedure for change of address as also for other transactions relating to opening of Beneficiary Owner (BO) Accounts for non-body corporates. These have to be followed by the participating banks. The procedure for change of address is given in circular no. NSDL/PI/2004/1622 dated 07.09.2004 which reads as under:

Change of Address:

1. While processing requests for change of address received from clients, participants should obtain the following documents:

1. A written application for change of address from the client (in case of joint holdings, all holders must sign the application);
2. Proof of identity (copy of any one of the documents mentioned in 3 (a) above);
3. Latest transaction statement of the account received from the participant;
4. Proof of new address (copy of any one of the documents mentioned in 3 (b) above) alongwith the original documents of the new address.

1. The client should personally visit the office of the participant where the client maintains and operates his/ her account and submit the application for change of address. However, in case the client expresses inability to personally visit the office of the participant, the application for change of address along with other documents can be submitted through an authorised representative whose identity the participant must verify.
2. The client or its authorised representative should sign the application once against in the presence of the officials of the participants.
3. The participant should verify the signature of the client on the application and the identity documents with the documents maintained with the participant. Further, the documents pertaining to new address should be verified with the original. After due verification an authorised official of the participant should put his/ her signature on the application with remarks “verified with original” and thereafter record the change of address in the DPM system.
4. However, in case participant could not verify the documents because the records of the documents submitted by the client are kept at a different place, then the participant must verify the same within a period of seven working days and only then effect the change.
5. After effecting the change of address in the DPM system, the participant should send a communication to the client, confirming the change of address to the old and the new address”.

27.    Participants are advised to ensure compliance of the above.

28.    The procedure was again reiterated in NSDL master circular dated 16.09.2009 which reads as under:

“Change of address (NSDL/PI/2004/1622 dated 07.09.2004 and NSDL/Policy/2008/0040 dated 04.06.2008).

1. While processing requests for change of address received from clients, participants should obtain the following documents:

1. A written application for change of address from the client (in case of joint holdings all holders must sign the application);
2. POI (copy of any one of the documents mentioned in (l) (1) (1.3) (a) above of the client (sole holder or either of the holders) visiting the office of the participant);
3. Latest transaction statement of the account received from the participant. In case a client (sole holder or either of the holders) personally visits the participants office to submit an application (signed by all holders in case of joint holdings) for change of address along with necessary documents (POI/ Proof of address) mentioned in point no. (l) (1) (1.3), the participant need not obtain the transaction statement from such client; (NSDL/Policy/2007/0030 dated 18.06.2007);
4. Proof of new address (copy of any one of the documents mentioned in (l) (i) (1.3) (b) above along with the original documents of the new address for verification.

1. The client should personally visit the office of the participant where the client maintains and operates his/ her account and submit the application for change of address. However, in case the client expresses in ability to personally visit the office of the participant, the application for change of address along with other documents can be submitted through an authorised representative, whose identity the participant must verify by collecting any of the proof of identity documents as stated in (l) (1) above DP must verify.
2. The client or its authorised representative should sign the application once again in the presence of the officials of the participant.
3. The participant should verify the signature of the client on the application and the identity documents with the documents maintained with the participant. Further, the documents pertaining to new address should be verified with the original. After due verification, an authorised official of the participant should put his/ her signature on the application with remarks ‘verified with original’ and thereafter record the change of address in the DPM system.
4. However, in case participant could not verify the documents because the records of the documents submitted by the client are kept at a different place, then the participant must verify the same within a period of seven working days and only then effect the change.
5. After effecting the change of address in the DPM system, the participant should send a communication to the client, confirming the change of address, to the old and the new address.

(1.3)     The applicant should submit any one of the following as a valid proof of identity/ proof of address along with a photocopyL NSDL/PI/2004/1622 dated 07.09.2004)

(a)    Proof of identity (POI)

        (i)     Passport

        (ii)    Voter ID Card

        (iii)    Driving Licence

        (iv)    PAN Card with photograph

        (v)    Identity card/ documents with applicants photo, issued by

        (a) Central/ State Government and its departments

        (b) Statutory/ Regulatory authorities

        (c) Public Sector undertakings

        (d) Scheduled Commercial Banks

        (e) Public Financial Institutions

        (f) Colleges affiliated to universities (this can be treated as valid only till the time the applicant is a student)

        (g) Professional bodies such as ICAI, ICWAI, ICSI, Bar Council etc., to their Members and;

        (h) Credit cards/ debit cards issued by Banks.

(b)    Proof of address:

        (i)     Ration Card

        (ii)    Passport

        (iii)    Voter ID Card

        (iv)    Driving Licence

        (v)    Bank Passbook/ Bank Statements (NSDL/Policy/ 2007/0074 dated 01.12.2007 and NSDL/Policy/2008/0037 dated 27.05.2008).

        (vi) Verified copies of

1. Electricity Bills (not more two months old)
2. Residence telephone bills (not more than two months old) and
3. Leave and License agreement/ agreement for sale

1. Self-declaration by High Court & Supreme Court Judges, giving the new address in respect of their own accounts.
2. Identity card/ document with address, issued by

(a) Central/ State Government and its departments

(b) Statutory/ Regulatory authorities

(c) Public Sector undertakings

(d) Scheduled Commercial Banks

(e) Public Financial Institutions”

29.    As per the condition for issue and use of instruction books, it was clear as per condition no. 6 “to stop processing of a lost or stolen instruction slip, you as the drawer should immediately instruct the Bank, in writing to stop processing the instruction slip, giving the instruction slip number, date, amount, ISIN and the receiver’s name”. The petitioner admitted during the argument that he chose not to give any proof of address and stated that he was living with his son should have been enough. Similarly he was of the view that he wanted the Bank to accept his instructions relating to stop processing of lost slip and they should not have asked for any proof of identity.

30.    Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011 (3) Scale 654 has observed:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”   

31.    From the facts of the case given above we do not find any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice in the respondent insisting on following the rule and procedures laid-down by SEBI and NSDL and the petitioner chose to willfully ignore. Thus, no jurisdictional or legal error has been shown to us to call for interference in the exercise of powers under Section 21 (b) of Act.  The order of the State Commission does not call for any interference nor does it suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or material irregularity. Thus, present petition is hereby, dismissed with no order as to cost.