Date of Order : 31.12.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay Rs.3000/- ( Three Thousand only ) as well as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
Complainant has asserted that the opposite party has entered wrong address in his Demat account no. 41326496. It is further case of the complainant that despite his repeated request the opposite party neither corrected the address nor the required paper with respect to online trading were made available to the complainant.
It is further case of the complainant that in the aforementioned circumstances the account was closed and neither the amount through cheque debited nor amount from his saving account have been returned by the bank.
The other grievance of the complainant is that the opposite party bank had not calculated interest under auto swip scheme on the deposited amount in saving bank account.
On behalf of the opposite party, ICICI bank a written statement has been filed denying the allegation of the complainant. It has been asserted that the complainant had saving account bearing no. 0625901129156 with the ICICI bank, Patna from 20.05.2013 with an option of “aQuantum Optima facility.” The complainant had opted Demat account being no. 41326496 on 30.12.2014 which has been duly linked by the bank with his aforementioned saving bank account. With regard to withdrawal of money from the account of the complainant on 27.01.2005 is concerned, It has been asserted by the opposite party that aforementioned deduction pertain to process charge for opting Demat account which has /had been realized on all customer as per policy of the opposite party Bank.
The opposite party has also denied that Rs. 499.38/- was wrongly realized by opposite party Bank because the aforementioned deduction was deducted towards “DEPOSITORY PARTICULAR CHARGE” levied annually on all customers account who are /were availing Demat account as per policy of the bank.
With regard to allegation of transferring the saving account of the complainant as well as opening a new account is concerned the opposite party has asserted in Para – 11 of written statement that as per guide line and policy of ICICI Bank Ltd., The event of account transfer the old account was fit to be closed and a new account was allotted to customer.
It has also been asserted that complainant has never mentioned his old address either in his letters to the bank or in the instant complaint where ICICI bank allegedly sending him letters, booklets and communications.
Replying the allegation of the complainant that opposite party Bank had wrongly stopped his Quantum Optima facility, in Para – 14 of written statement the opposite party has stated that as per policy of the bank the bank discontinues the Quantum Optima facility on opting for a Demat account linked with saving account which is/was duly mentioned in the Demat account opening form which was filled up and signed by the complainant.
It has been further asserted by the opposite party that if the Quanta Optima facility will not be removed then customer will not be able to allocate it for trading as the FDS will not be broken, though the quanta optima FDS will shown as available for trading which will defect the purpose of DEMAT account. In this regard we think it proper to mention Para – 16 of the written statement which is as follows, “that more over, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that in section 2 of demat account opening form signed by the complainant if is clearly mentioned I /we request you to remove the Quantum Optima facility from any/our account in case where the same is given for linked. All quantum optima FDs to be closed and credited to my saving account. I /we also authorize that the existing bank details and details under existing cust – id to be modified as per the application.”
It has been further asserted by opposite party that Quantum Optima facility of the complainant was rightly withdrawn after taking consent from the complainant under existing policy.
It has been submitted by the opposite party that the bank has acted on all time as per its policy and has never taken steps without the prior consent of the complainant.
On behalf of complainant a rejoinder has been filed to the written statement of the opposite party.
The complainant in his rejoinder has repeated the allegation made in the complaint petition and denied the allegation made by opposite party in written statement. In Para – 12 of rejoinder the complainant has stated that the opposite party falsely stated on oath that the complainant has requested to update his address at the time of account transfer.
On behalf of opposite party a reply to rejoinder filed by the complainant has been filed. It has been stated that the complainant has represented the change of address in TIFT booklets and related documents and it was essential for the complainant to make request in the DEMAT account which was the route of his account. In reply the opposite party has repeated and explained the fact mentioned in written statement which has already been narrated in written statement in brief.
On behalf of the complainant a rejoinder to the reply of opposite party to the rejoinder dated 11.03.2010 has been filed repeating the same fact which he has made in his complaint petition and rejoinder filed earlier.
Both sides have filed written argument.
Heard and perused the record carefully.
Complainant has alleged that amount was wrongly debited from his saving account on 27.01.2005 while the opposite party has stated that deduction was due to process charge as per policy of Bank which was applicable to all customers.
It has been asserted by the opposite party that all deduction has been done as per policy of the Bank which was inconsonance with the guideline of Reserve Bank of India.
So far the transferring of account of the complainant and opening of the new account is concerned it has been asserted by the opposite party that the same has been done as per policy of the Bank which has been made applicable to all customers similarly situated.
So far closing of account of the complainant by the Bank is concerned the Bank has asserted that this has been done as per guideline and policy of the Bank based on the guideline of Reserve Bank of India.
The complainant has stated that he has never requested the Bank for changing his address etc. which had been denied by the bank and the bank has asserted that this has been done as per consent of the complainant.
From careful perusal of the complaint petition, written statement, rejoinder etc. it is crystal clear that there are several disputed facts which cannot be decided by this forum.
Apart from it, the bank has taken the shelter of its policy based on Reserve Bank of India guideline which was made applicable in the case of all similarly situated customers. The complainant has not filed a chit of paper to prove that the bank has acted against its policy contrary to the guideline of Reserve Bank of India. The complainant has not filed a paper that such treatment has not been made by the bank with regard to similarly situated customers.
For the discussion made above we find no merit in this case and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed but without cost.
Member President
