BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.183 of 2017 Date of Instt.13.06.2017 Date of Decision: 27.04.2021

1. Captain Heman Syal, Aged 55 years s/o Late Sh. Dev Kumar Syal, Safety Superintendent working with TORM Shipping India Pvt. Ltd., 2^nd Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri – Kurla Road, Andheri (E) Mumbai 400059 and R/o 274, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar City 144001.

2. Smt. Sumira Syal, Aged 51 years w/o Captain Heman Syal s/o Late Sh. Dev Kumar Syal, r/o 274, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar City 144001.

..........Complainants

Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., 22-23, G.T. Road, Opp. Hotel Kings, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Race Course Circle, Vododara 390 007 through its C.M.D.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Smt.Jyotsna, Member

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For Complainants : Sh. Inderjit Singh Bhatia, Advocate

For OPs No.1 & 2 : Sh. Y.V. Rishi, Advocate

Order

Per Kuljit Singh, President

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainants, wherein they alleged that complainant No.1 is holding NRE Saving account No.008201075037 with OP-1 since the year 2000. When the said account opened the complainant No.1 was working as Sea going Captain for Singapore based company and had mentioned his Singapore Overseas address on the account opening form submitted to OP-1. In 2011, complainant No.1 changed his employer and got employed with a US based company and the address of complainant No.1 in the aforesaid account was changed to the US address. In the year 2007, the US company was taken over by Danish Company but overseas address of complainant was not changed in data base of OPs. In the year 2014, complainant No.1 brought the said fact to the notice of OP-1 and the address of complainant No.1 on the system of OP-1 was changed as that of his residential address in Jalandhar. Said saving account is main saving account held in the name of complainant No.1 in which the salary of complainant No.1 is credited by his employer and all the household and living expenses etc are made through the deposits held in the said account. Since complainant No.1 remains out of country for about eight months a year, the finances of complainant No.1 are mainly handled and managed by his wife, the complainant No.2. Complainant No.1 had nominated and authorized here as mandate holder to operate said account for all intents and purposes. The OPs had issued International debit cards in the name of complainants for easy operation of the account. OPs had issued international debit card (master card) No.5244 5100 8200 0186 in the name of complainant No. 2 valid from 04/15 valid through 03/20 besides a similar international debit card in the name of complainant No.1. Complainant No.1 had also issued ECS instructions to OP-1 for payment of LIC premiums in respect of his LIC policies held in the names of complainants. Complainants were shocked to receive notice dated 20.03.2017 from LIC informing that ECS invoice sent by them for deduction of premium on 15.03.2017 had been dishonored by OP-1. On receiving said notice, complainant No.2 approached the OP-1 and enquired the reason for the same. The concerned executive of OP-1 expressed verbal regrets and assured the complainant No.2 that the needful shall be done and default shall not recur in future. The complainant No.1 had to pay the amount with late fee to LIC in cash against receipt dated 15.04.2017 for Rs.5354.10. On 27.03.2017 against OP-2 dishonored cheque No.023485 for Rs.4,00,000/- favouring Bombay Jewelers Forever, Jalandhar issued by complainant No.2, although the account was having sufficient credit balance for payment of said cheque. The repudiation and credit worthiness of the complainants was considerably eroded in the eyes of said business house. When the complainant No.2 raised protest on phone, the OP-1 issue written regrets addressed to Bombay Jewelers Forever. On 05.04.2017, the complainant No.2 issued self drawn cheque No.001318 for Rs.25,000/- which was dishonored by OP-1 without any reason. Complainant No.2 called the bank and asked the reason for dishonor of the self-drawn cheque as there was more than sufficient credit balance in account and the cheque was properly drawn. The concerned officials of the OP-2 regretted having dishonored the cheque and sent the amount of Rs.25,000/- in cash to residence of complainants. Again complainants received notice dated 15.05.2017 from LIC that the ECS invoice dated 07.05.2017 had dishonored by OP-1 without disclosing any specific reason. The complainants had to pay premium amount for three months with late fee total amounting to Rs.16,062.20. On 25.04.2017, a transaction made by complainant No.1 on the valid International Debit card was declined at merchant outlet in Chandigarh which caused lot of embarrassment to complainant No.1 as he was having more than Rs.1.75 Cr. As credit balance with OP-1. The complainant No. 1 tried to contact the OPs but nothing was done. The complainant No.1 issued a new international debit card No.5244 5100 8200 0376 valid from 04/17 to 03/22. However, the card again got declined at Airport lounge at Delhi on 09.05.2017 on the return the complainant No.1 again causing undue harassment. On approached to OPs, regarding said reason, unsatisfactory reply dated 19.05.2017 received. Complainant No.1 sent email dated 22.05.2017 and 26.05.2017 but could not give any satisfactory reason for dishonoring and declining the transaction of said saving account. Complainants were informed due to non-compliance of certain norms, the saving account in dispute had been frozen by bank in March 2017. However, no written intimation to this effect was ever conveyed to complainants nor any show cause notice was ever served on them by OPs before freezing the account of complainant No.1. The international debit card was also illegally blocked without any intimation and any show cause notice. The complainants personally visited the OP-2 resolution, but OP-1 have not been able to provide any justification for their illegal acts. OPs after repeated requests have issued an ordinary ATM debit card No.9401 1200 8200 6539 valid in through 04/2027 in May 2017. The said card is useless and has no utility for the complainants. The complainant No.1 also having account with Standard Charted Bank and has nominated complainant No.2 as mandate holder. The said bank has issued separate international debit cards in the name of complainants and complainant No.2 is enjoying all the facilities and privileges for the operation of said account. OPs have no authority to freeze the account of complainant No.1 without serving any show cause notice and without any orders to that effect passed by any court of law or by any other competent authority. Lastly prayer has been made that OPs be directed to tender unconditional written apology for their illegal and arbitrary freezing of NRE saving account No.008201075037 held in the name of complainant No.1 and to allow the complainants to operate the said account without any illegal restriction/objection and to issue fresh International Debit card in the name of complainant No.2 similar to the one issued in the name of complainant No.1 forthwith. Further OPs be directed to pay Rs.19,00,000/- as damages for harassment. The costs of complaint also awarded.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable; complaint is false and malafide and is nothing but an abuse of process of law; complainant has not approached to this Commission with clean hands. Complainant represented himself to be a Non-Resident Indian opened a NRI Saving Account No.008201075037 with OPs in the year 2000 and did not furnish any changes about his employment to Ops for long time due to which their account remained in the same state. It was in the year 2016 on their request for upgrading his account to Pro/Premia account to avail additional benefits available in Pro/Premia NRI accounts. As per law the complainant was to furnish his copy of PAN card and further as their account was pro/premia NRI account so it was mandatory for them to submit their particulars under Foreign Exchange Tax compliance Act (hereinafter referred to as FATCA) till March 2017 which they failed and completed on 11.05.2017 and in terms of RBI guidelines their bank account was frozen on 08.03.2017, however, on oral assurances of complainants that they will furnish the copy of their PAN card and also complete requirements under FATCA by April 2017, as a gesture of good customer service, their bank account was unfreezed on 24.03.2017. As the complainants failed to comply with legal requirements in their account i.e. furnishing of copy of PAN card and file the particulars under FATCA so their bank account was again frozen on 03.05.2017. The complainants completed said requirements on 11.05.2017 and as such their bank account was again unfreezed on 11.05.2017. The complainants were duly intimated about the said requirement and being a vigilant persons expected to know the law which has been otherwise also published in various newspapers circulated in the country cannot allege that they were no aware of requirements of PAN card details and FATCA. Ignorance of law is no excuse. Their bank account was frozen due to their own faults which they were well aware of so their allegation are untenable about dishonor of ECS claim in their account and cheque and blockage in operations of their debit cards; complainants are themselves liable for their own acts and conducts. On merits, it is admitted that complainant is a Non-Resident Indian (External) as per available record. NRI account of complainant is also admitted. The said account was opened by him in year 2000 and it was upgraded to NRI pro/premia account in 2016 on his consent on 10.05.2016. The complainant did intimate changes as alleged by him to the OPs and it is only of late he has informed change in their address which has been duly taken on record by OPs. It is admitted that complainant No.2 is holding mandate to operate his said account. It is also admitted that Ops have issued international debit card in the name of complainants for operation in the said account. Ops also admitted qua issuance of debit card and further admitted that complainant issued ECS instructions for payment of LIC premium in respect of LIC policies of complainant No.1. Complainant No.2 approached to OP-1 on 23.03.2017 with letter dated 20.03.2017 of LIC and requested for operations in their account. The attentions of complainant No.2 was made to awaited compliance of KYC norms and FATCA legal requirements in their bank account. On her assurance that they could complete the same by April 2017, as gesture of good customer service their bank account was unfreezed on 24.03.2017. It is submitted that ECS invoice sent by LIC on 07.05.2017 when the account of complainant was standing frozen for want of compliance of mandatory requirements in their bank account and due to non- compliance of said requirements, their account was freezed on 03.05.2017. The said dishonor of their ECS mandate was due to their own omission and fault for which the OPs are not liable in any manner to complainant. It is admitted that new debit card was issued to complainant No.1. The account of complainant was blocked upto 11.05.2017 and as such the said card could be operated only after 11.05.2017. It is submitted that complainants were duly informed about the same as and when complainant No.2 visited the OP-1 and she had duly undertaken to fulfill the requirements of law. It is admitted that ATM debit card No.9401 1200 8200 6539 has been issued to complainant No.2 as per rules of bank and all available facilities applicable to account of complainants is given to them as per terms and conditions of said account. The terms and conditions of Standard Chartered Bank Limited Jalandhar cannot be compared with the OPs as per terms and conditions applicable to accounts differ as per their policy of respective banks. Rest of averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3. In order to prove their respective version, the counsel for the parties produced on the file his respective evidence.

4. We have heard the arguments of the parties and also gone through the written arguments of OPs as well as case file very carefully.

5. During arguments the contentions of parties are similar to the pleadings, so no need to reiterate the same. It is admitted fact that the complainant No.1 is holding NRI Saving account No.008201075037 with OP-1 since the year 2000. Further, it is not disputed about the issuance of International Debit Card, ATM Card and other service to the complainants.

6. OP has contested that account of the complainant was freezed since the complainant had not submitted KYC document as per govt. guidelines whereas the complainant has submitted that he had not received any intimation from the OPs with regard to the above mentioned account freezed/blocked and the complainants have already completed all the formalities with regard to the above said account with the OPs. As per Ex.OP-1, it is crystal clear that they have written that “Your ICICI Bank account has been frozen/Update your PAN details immediately. As per directives of RBI, all NRI accounts, wherein customers have not updated their PAN/Form 60 have to be frozen”. But the OPs did not submit any evidentiary proof of the same. Also while going through the bank statement submitted by the complainant Ex.C-8, we find that the OPs have honoured cheque No.23485 on 28.03.2017. Further, the complainant No.1 has written emails to Ops Ex.OP-9 and Ex.OP-10 and mentioned that they updated FATCA on 11.05.2017. Therefore, after completing all formalities by complainant, the Ops by not making the account operative/unfreeze, it is clear cut case of deficiency in service against the OPs. So, complainant is entitled for the relief.

7. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OPs are directed to make the account of complainants operative/unfreeze immediately. Further, Ops are directed to pay compensation of Rs.7000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment including cost of litigation. The OPs have no right to keep and misappropriate the public money. It must go back to the public. We, therefore, order that the OPs will deposit a sum of Rs.3000/- as costs in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained by this Commission. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with the above mentioned order of this Commission.

8. Further, the entire compliance be made within 45 days qua compensation, litigation expenses and deposit of cost in legal aid account of this Commission by Ops from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work and spread of Covid-19.

9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules.

10. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

27^th of April 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)