Delhi

East Delhi

CC/191/2014

SATYENDER - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  191/14

 

1. Shri Satyendra Satyarthi

S/o Shri Jay Mangal Singh

52, Kanchan Changa Apt.

Plot No. 90, I.P. Ext., Patparganj

Delhi – 110 092

 

2. Ranjana Singh

W/o Shri Satyendra Satyarthi

52, Kanchan Changa Apt.

Plot No. 90, I.P. Ext., Patparganj

Delhi – 110 092                                                           …….Complainant

Vs.

1. ICICI Bank

Preet Vihar Branch

F-11, Vikas Marg

Preet Vihar, Delhi – 110 092

 

2. ICICI Bank Towers

(Corporate Office)

Bandra Curla Complex

Mumbai – 400051                                                               ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 06.03.2014

Judgment Reserved on: 24.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 25.04.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Satyendra Satyarthi (petitioner-1) and Ranjana Singh (petitioner-2) against ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar Branch (respondent-1) and ICICI Bank Towers, Corporate Office, Bandra Curla Complex, Mumbai (respondent-2) under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.       It has been stated in the complaint that ICICI bank refused to update their correspondence address in their DP account no. 10583646 for Satyendra Satyarthi and DP account no. 40709072  for Ranjana Singh despite providing all the necessary documents, though the same bank and branch updated their address in the records in their saving bank account no. 007801026471, 0078010227076 and 007801509194 with the set of documents i.e. a copy of PAN card as ID Proof and a copy of their passbook of SBI, Vivek Vihar, New Delhi Branch.  They sent representatives to their address to collect the documents.  Thus, their address stand verified.  The Vivek Vihar branch of ICICI bank updated address in their daughter’s account no. 082901504717 online without any documents, which clearly indicates of anomaly and irregularities in providing customer service.  It has been stated that their important investment related documents will get misplaced and lost for which they have to suffer huge loss.

          It has further been stated that there has been rampant anomaly and irregularities in this branch; they were harassed and intellectually insulted by their Preet Vihar Branch.  Thus, they have prayed that respondents be directed to update their correspondence address in their records; compensate them for moral and physical loss and intellectual insult. 

3.       No WS was filed by OPs, though; they appeared in the case and were given opportunity to file the same.  However, case was proceeded ex-parte.      

4.       In support of its complaint, the complainants have examined themselves on affidavit.  They have stated in the complaint that ICICI bank changed their address and updated their KYC in 3 of their accounts viz. 007801026471, 0078010227076 and 007801509194 on the basis of documents given such as PAN, ID proof and a copy of SBI statement of their saving bank account no. 32657690624.  They correspond with the complainant on the address given in the statement of account of State Bank of India.  They sent their representative to their address, but their address was not verified without a cheque leaf of SBI account.  They were not having a cheque book for the mentioned account of SBI.  It was issued on 26.11.2013. 

          It is stated that all the banks follow RBI guidelines for KYC.  It is further deposed that on the website of RBI, no cheque leaf was required when they submit their statement of account of any other bank recognized by them.  It is further deposed that ICICI’s own KYC form does not mention the requirement of a cheque leaf for address proof.  They do not ask cheque leaf while opening a three-in-one account (Saving Bank Account, DEMAT account and Trading Account).

          In defence, ICICI bank Ltd., NBCC Tower, Bhisam Pitahmah Marg, New Delhi has examined Shri Sanjay Sharma, Manager (Legal), who has deposed on affidavit.  He has deposed that the complainants were trying to take advantage of their own wrong.  Complainants had failed to given the cancelled cheque as per the requirement for change of address in the DEMAT account.  The said admission has been made by the complainants in their complaint made to the Banking Ombudsman on 23.09.2013.  The said complaint has been annexed by the complainants themselves.  They have admitted that the cheques were not provided despite the fact that staff of the bank had gone to collect the same from their residence. 

          It has further been deposed that the address change form which has been annexed by the complainants themselves, the check list provides several documents, which can be accepted as proof of address in respect of DEMAT account.  This list contains copy of pass book of other bank accompanied with entries of at least last two months / latest banker verification should be obtained the statement of a pass book.  If the customer submits other bank statement as address proof, a cancelled cheque was mandatory.  Thus, documents were known to the complainants from the very beginning.  It is further deposed that action of the OP is to safeguard the interest of the customers.  Complainants have not submitted a valid address proof which was informed to the customers.  Complainants admitted that they refused to provide the cancelled cheque when the staff visited to collect the documents.  Banking Ombudsmen have also held the same while dismissing the complaints.

5.       We have heard the complainants and the Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The only issue which arises in this complaint has been with regard to change of address in their DEMAT account No. 10583646 for Satyendra Satyarthi  (petitiioner-1) and DEMAT account no. 40709072 for
Ranjana Singh (petitioner-2).  The plea which has been taken on behalf of bank has been that the complainants refused to hand over the cancelled cheque.  They have made reference to the complaint of dated 23.09.2013 which was given by the complainant to the banking ombudsman in annexure-1, para-6, stated that the complainant refused to give a cancelled cheque.

          On the other hand, complainants have argued that when the bank have updated their saving bank accounts no. 007801026471, 0078010227076 and 007801509194 with the same set of documents, they refused to update their DEMAT account no. 10583646 and 40709072.  The thrust of arguments on behalf of bank has been that when the complainants have refused to hand over a leaf of cheque to enable them to change the address, it was the complainants, who were at fault and not the bank.

          If a look is made to the first complaint, which the complainants have made to the Banking Ombudsman on 23.09.2013, it is noticed that in para 6 of annexure-1, the complainant himself have stated that they refused to give a cancelled cheque when a staff of Preet Vihar Branch visited his residence.  To quote from para 6 “I refused to give a cancelled cheque additionally and decided to meet Mr. Sinha once again”. 

          The case of the complainants that their address have been updated by the same branch in their saving bank accounts                  no. 007801026471, 0078010227076 and 007801509194 with the same set of documents and Vivek Vihar branch of ICICI bank updated the address of their daughter’s account no. 082901504717 online without any documents does not hold good as the correspondence address which was to be updated on the request of the complainants relate to DEMAT accounts no. 10583646 and 40709072. in the name of the complainants Satyendra Satyarthi and Ranjana Singh respectively.  Both these accounts are different one.  Further, in the complaint filed before Ombudsman, it has been stated by the complainant himself in para 6 of annexure-1 that the bank official deputed their staff to collect the cancelled cheque, but he refused to give a cancelled cheque.  However, this fact has not been stated by the complaints in their complaint.  Thus, the fact remains that it is the complainants, who have refused to give a cancelled cheque.  When the complainant himself have refused to give a cancelled cheque, which was asked by the bank officials, the question of deficiency in service on the part of bank does not arise.

          In view of the above, we are of the opinion that there has been no deficiency on the part of ICICI Bank, Preet Vihar Branch (respondent-1) and ICICI Bank Towers, Corporate Office, Bandra Curla Complex, Mumbai (respondent-2), therefore, the complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

        Member                                                     President