Haryana

Karnal

CC/206/2017

Deepak Anand - Complainant(s)

Versus

IDBI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Abhay Sahu

06 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.206 of 2017

                                                          Date of instt.23.06.2016

                                                          Date of Decision 06.06.2018

 

Deepak Anand age about 47 years son of Shri Jagdish Chander Anand, resident of House no.24, Block no.8, village Kutel, Tehsil and District Karnal.

 

                                                                  …….Complainant.

                                        Versus

 

IDBI Bank Ltd., Sol ID-351, Branch SCO no.218-219, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal through its Manager.

                                                                     …..Opposite Party.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

Before    Shri Jagmal Singh……President.

                Shri Anil Sharma……Member

 

Present:  Shri Abhay Sahu Advocate for complainant.

                 Shri Kanwar Preet Singh Advocate for OP.

                

 

ORDER:                    

         

                   (JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)

 

                 This complaint has been filed by the complainants u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that the complainant is having a saving bank account no.351104000011477 in the bank of OP since last more than 7 -8 years and the complainant is using the said bank account continuously. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant running a Bread factory under the name and style of M/s Welrose Food Industries, situated at near Arpana Hospital, Madhuban District Karnal and complainant received money from the salesmen in the shape of coins and complainant regularly deposited the cons in the bank of OP. During the period of demonetization the complainant approached the office of OP to deposit Rs.2000/0 (in shape of cons of Rs.10/-) in his account, but the concerned clerk refused to accept/deposit the coins, but on repeated request after 1 hours concerned clerk received the said coins and deposit the same. Thereafter, on 4.5.2017 the complainant again reached in the office of OP to deposit Rs.6000/- as coins of Rs.10/- each, but the concerned clerk of OP refused to receive/accept the same and without any reasons argued with the complainant and also called the local police for taking action against the complainant, the concerned police directed the concerned clerk/bank official to deposit the coins of the complainant and then on instructions of concerned police, the bank official deposit the coins. On 8.6.2017, the complainant again approached the OP for deposit the 1000 coins of Rs.10/- each i.e. Rs.10,000/-  and requested to deposit the same in his account where a lady employee was sitting there who showed her inability to count the coins and she requested the complainant to deposit only Rs.5000/- on time in the bank and on the request of concerned lady clerk the complainant was ready to deposit Rs.5000/- a time in his account but after some the said clerk told to the complainant that the service and operation manager told to her telephonically that not deposit coins of more than Rs.1000/- and then complainant approached the service and operation Manager and asked the reason for not depositing the coins of more than Rs.1000/- then the Service and Operation Manager shoed the notification of 2011 and stated that as per the notification of 2011 of RBI no coins of more than Rs.1000/- can be deposited by the bank, then the complainant showed the notification of 2016 of RBI and as per the guidelines of RBI in clause-1, Facility for exchange of notes and coins at Bank Branches:- Accepting coins and notes either for transaction or exchange. It is further submitted that the concerned service and operation Manager so much argued with the complainant and refused to deposit the coins then the complainant further asked the said service and Operation Manager that why the Bank has not display the said instruction on the notice board, then the concerned official not paid any heed to his request and not deposited the money coins of complainant in their bank.  Aggrieved from the acts of officials of OP, the complainant made a written complaint to the Manager, IDBI Bank Limited, Karnal on 17.06.2017, but no action has ever been taken against the complaint of the complainant. On 20.06.2017, the complainant received a letter vide Ref. no.IDBI/2017-18/59 dated 15.06.2017 wherein the OP directed the complainant to close his bank account within 7 days after receipt of said letter dated 15.06.2017 and also directed that if the complainant not closed his account, then the bank without any prior notice closed the account of the complainant and if the complainant present any cheque in the said account the same will definitely be dishonoured and the bank will not be responsible for the same. After receiving the letter dated 15.06.2017 on 21.06.2017 the complainant approached to the office of OP, but the guard on duty never allowed the complainant to enter into the bank premises by saying the “I have strict instruction from the official of bank to not allowed the complainant to enter into the bank premises and when the complainant told to the concerned guard that I have received a letter and I intends to enquire about the said letter, but the guard and other officials of bank started abusing with the complainant and flatly refused to entertain the complainant in any manner.” In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             Notice of the complaint was given to OP, who appeared and filed written statement stating therein that as during the time of demonetization complainant has been harassing the staff of the OP by insisting on depositing Rs.10/- coin more than the required ratio/limit i.e. 100 cons of Rs.10/-. The complainant has been time and again informed that the prescribed limit is only 100 coins of Rs.10/- but due to the good gesture and to save the harassment of other customers his money was deposited with the commitment from the complainant that next time only 100 coins of Rs.10/- equivalent to Rs.1000/- will be taken as deposit by OP only. It is further submitted that the complainant was apprised about the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India regarding the depositing of Rs.10/- coin but he insisted on to get all his money deposited i.e. about 600 coins and started abusing and threatening the staff of OP in the presence of other customers where the police was called for his rude behavior and threatening. It is only after police interference he became calm and acknowledged his mistake. Police personnel also gave him warning for his act and conduct and after the assurance given by the complainant, the bank officials accepted deposit of his amount exceeding the prescribed limit for the last time on the request of complainant and OP did not pursue the police complaint. On 8.6.2017, the complainant was specifically told again about the provisions of The Coinage Act, 2011 and the relevant excerpts from the Chapter 3 (coin when a legal tender) are being reproduced as follow:

“(1) The coins issued under the authority of section 4 shall be a legal tender in payment or on account, in case—(a) a coin of any denomination not lower than one rupee, for any sum not exceeding one thousand rupees:” Even the circular issued by RBI is very clear regarding the law laid down in 13^th Point Dated Duly 18, 2016 which has been placed on the file by complainant himself. After having understood the relevant rules, the complainant left his 10 bags of Rs.10 denomination coins on the teller counter and simply left the bank branch. The bank staff tried to reasonate with him to act in a just and rightful manner but the complainant never paid any heed to the repeated pleadings of the bank staff. It is further submitted that Bank is always ready to adhere to the grievances of the public at large and their valued customer as per the RBI guidelines and Govt. policies but this complainant had been harassing the bank employees on one pretext or the other. It is further submitted that the act and conduct of complainant of harassing bank employees on many occasion is exemplified in the fact that the complainant on subsequent occasions has been depositing Rs.10 denomination coins (albeit within legal limits) and in addition to that have also started depositing abnormally large number of mutilated bad condition Rs.5/- notes frequently. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 22.12.2017.

4.             On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Ravi Kant Assistant General Manager Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 8.5.2018.

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

6.             The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is having a saving bank account with the OP for the last 7-8 years. He argued that the complainant is running a bread factory and received money in the shape of coins from the salesman. He further argued that during the period of demonetization, the complainant went to OP for deposit of Rs.2000/- in the shape of coin of Rs.10/-. The concerned clerk of OP refused to accept the same but on repeated request of the complainant he deposited the same into the account of complainant. He further argued that on 4.5.2017 the complainant went with Rs.6000/- as coin of Rs.10/- each, the concerned clerk of OP refused to accept the same and made argument with complainant and also called police. But lateron with intervention of police, deposit the said amount. He further argued that on 8.6.2017 the complainant again went to OP for deposit of 1000 coins of Rs.10/- each i.e. Rs.10,000/- in his account. The concerned lady clerk showed her inability to count the same and firstly she requested the complainant to deposit Rs.5000/- but lateron she told that service and operation manager told her that not deposit coins of more than Rs.1000/- The complainant met the said manager, who showed the notification of 2011 and stated that no coin of more than Rs.1000/- can be deposited. The complainant showed notification of 2016 of RBI to the said Manager but he refused to deposit the coins. The complainant made complaint to the Manager on 17.06.2017 but no action was taken. He further argued that the OP issued a letter dated 15.06.2015 whereby the complainant was directed to close his bank account within 7 days after receipt of the said letter and if the complainant would not close his account, then the bank without any prior notice close the account of the complainant. When the complainant on 21.06.2017 went to OP, the guard of OP did not allow the complainant to enter the bank.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant was told time and again about the law regulating the deposit of coins but every time the complainant insisted on exceeding the limit. He further argued that according to the provisions of “The Indian Coinage Act, 2011” the coins of any denomination not lower than one rupee for any sum not exceeding one thousand rupee can be deposited. He further argued that the complainant has been harassing the OP’s employee time and again and due to this behaviour, the police was called in the bank and all his behaviour has been recorded in CCTV camera. The complainant had created nuisance with the employee and customers time and again and due to this reason the notice dated 15.06.2017 was issued by the OP to the complainant for closing his account. The OP has right to close the account of such customers and in this regard he produced at the time of arguments the “Customer Severance Policy” of IDBI Bank. He further argued that the act and conduct of the complainant for harassing the bank employees on many occasions exemplified from the fact that the complainant on subsequent occasions has been depositing coins of Rs.10/-and bad condition Rs.5/- currency notes frequently and in this regard referred the deposit slips Ex.R-2 to Ex.R-5.

8.             From the submissions of the parties, it is clear that the complainant time and again tried to deposit money more than Rs.1000/- in the shape of coins of Rs.10/- but the OP deposit the coin of Rs.1000/- only. In this regard the OP referred the clause 6(1) of Indian Coinage Act 2011 which is relevant and is as under:-

“6- Coin when a legal tender

(1) The coins issued under the authority of section 4 shall be a legal tender in payment or on account, in case of:-

(a) a coin of any denomination not lower than one rupee, for any sum not exceeding one thousand rupees;

(b) a half-rupee coin, for any sum not exceeding ten rupees;

(c) any other coin, for any sum not exceeding one rupee:

        Provided that the coin has not been defaced and has not lost weight so as to be less than such weight as may be prescribed in its case.”

 

9.             In reply to the above Act, the complainant referred Master Circular Ex.C-3 and stated that his circular is dated 18.07.2016, which is later than Act of 2011. The relevant provisions of Master Circular Ex.C-3 are clause 13(b) which runs as under:-

13. Agreement between RBI and commercial banks.

(a)  ……………

“(b)  They should accept coins of all denominations which are legal tender under the Indian Coinage Act, 2011 from any member of public without any restriction and pay the value in notes.”

(c) ……….

10.            From the above clause, it is clear that the coins can be accepted which are legal tender under the Indian Coinage Act, 2011. As per said Act as mentioned above, the legal tender in payment of coin for any sum not exceeding one thousand rupees. Moreover, a circular cannot override the provisions of an Act passed by the Parliament. However, as stated above, the above mentioned circular clearly states that coins can be accepted which are legal tender under the said Act of 2011. In these circumstances, in our view, the OP has committed no mistake in not accepting the coins more than Rs.1000/-.

11.            The next controversy between the parties is that whether the OP can close the account of the complainant or not?

12.            In this regard, the OP stated that the complainant tried to harass the employee of OP by brining coins more than Rs.1000/- time and again and also tried to create nuisance with the bank employee and once the police was to be called. The fact of calling of police is admitted by the complainant. The OP also produced the Customer Severance Policy of IDBI Bank of April, 2017 and referred clause 7 of the same. The clause 7.1 and 7.11 are relevant which are as under:-

7.      Bank-induced closure of Accounts

7.1    The bank shall have the freedom to close accounts, which are considered undesirable and un-remunerative. The bank shall carry out review of relationship in regular frequency. In the event customer’s account behavior is in contravention to the extent regulatory guidelines e.g.AML:, transaction pattern not matching with the profile etc. bank shall take necessary steps to intimate the customer with a request to provide evidences in support of transaction pattern/account behavior etc. In the vent that the customer is unable to provide appropriate evidences or the customer is not traceable within 7 days, bank shall take steps to close the accounts after sending proper written notice to the customer, at the address of the customer as Bank records after obtaining appropriate internal approvals.

7.11 USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE/VIOLENCE BY CUSTOMERS

        Our Bank gives customer service paramount importance and requires all our personnel to treat customers with politeness, courtesy and respect at every interaction. Sometimes, mitigating circumstances, like systems downtime, policy related issues and compliance-related concerns, may compel us to convey decisions that may not be to entire satisfaction of customers. These are, however, only the exception and not the rule. The rule is to provide agreeable solutions, and that too at the first interaction itself; and the compliments that the Bank receives from satisfied customer-through our website, by phone, by e-mail and by letter are indeed very heartening. However, sometimes customers resorting to provocative and unparliamentarily language or rude, disruptive and violent behaviour stretch tolerance, cause distress and impact on morale and efficiency. This can lead to a compromise in the level of service received by other customers and is therefore untenable. Therefore, despite the acknowledged primacy that a customer in the service industry commands, Bank informs with the greatest reluctance and deepest regret that, if customers are found to be offensive in their interaction with our personnel, Bank will be required to close all their relationships with the customer after giving proper notice.

 

13.            According to the OP, the customer i.e. complainant was found to be offensive in interaction with his personnel and this contention of the OP is found support that once the police was called by the OP. It is admitted by the complainant that he went to deposit the coins of more than Rs.1000/- many times and when the OP had not accepted the coin of more than Rs.1000/- then the complainant might have created nuisance in the Bank and this was the reason that the OP had called the police. In these circumstances and in pursuance of the above clause, in our view the OP can close the account of the complainant.  Thus, we found no deficiency on the part of the OP.

14.            In view of above discussion, we found no merits in the complaint and accordingly the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:06.06.2018

                                                               

                                                                 President,

                                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                                        Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

                        (Anil Sharma)

                          Member