Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a Complaint presented by the Complainant through his authorised agent against the Opposite parties with his grievance that the First opposite party has set up a Co-Ordinate Banking service. RBI issues guidelines and modifications to all the banks in India and the First Opposite party is required to supervise the banks to see the banking service practiced by them conform to standards laid down by RBI from time to time. The Second and Third Opposite parties are required to render service to the customers as directed by First Opposite party. Fourth Opposite party is the officer of Reserve Bank of India, in Charge of Karnataka, has to implement the circulars and guide lines in that region. Failure of First and Fourth Opposite parties in exercising proper control over the subsidiary banks has resulted in exploitation of large number of pensioners who are categorised as senior citizen. The Central Governments has drawn several schemes to help the senior citizens. That the Fourth Opposite party had published an advertisement in Deccan Herald news paper dated 15.07.2006 the practices to be followed by the banks. Therefore the banks are required to follow and implement the schemes like providing a copy of the code to the existing customer to provide copy to all the new customers at the time of opening the account in every branch and also it shall deal fairly with the customers. That he requested Second Opposite party to provide a copy of the code, who plead his ignorance about very existence of such a publication. Then he made a representation to First opposite party but did not receive any reply. Then he got a copy of the codebook from the Managing Director of Canara Bank. That he is aggrieved by the delay in payment of dearness relief of the arrears and other deficiencies in service rendered by Second Opposite party. Then he applied for information under Right to Information Act. The Third Opposite party has given a reply through letter dated 25.10.2007, therefore there is a failure of following guidelines given by R.B.I. in its circular dated 06.02.2006 and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to rectify the defects and deficiency alleged.<br /> 1. To rectify the defects and deficiencies alleged.<br /> 2. To nominate senior citizen to the customer advisory committee immediately.<br /> 3. To implement reverse mortgage loan scheme.<br /> 4. To pay pension relief arrears as per the direction issued by central government.<br /> 5. To pay a nominal amount of Rs.1 lakh to the Mysore District Forum’s Consumer Welfare Fund under section 14(1)h b of C.P.Act for their unfair trade practices described above.<br /> 6. To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 7. To grant any other relief deemed fit under the circumstances of the complaint.<br /> 2. At the time of admission of this complaint, on hearing the representative of the Complainant we found that the Opposite parties other then First and Second are not necessary parties, therefore we issued notice on this complaint to First and Second Opposite parties only. A representative of First Opposite party has sent a note to this Forum stating that they are nothing to do with the supervision of implementation of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and it is only the Reserve Bank of India that supervises the implementation of the guidelines and exercise proper control over the Banks. The Second Opposite party though was served has remained absent, therefore is placed exparte. <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence reproducing what he has stated in his complaint. After receipt of the reply from First Opposite party we found that the attribution made by the complainant against the First Opposite party regarding supervision of implementation of the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India is not the function of First Opposite party and the representative of the complainant also after considering the reply of First Opposite party confined his complaint against the Second Opposite party only.<br /> 4. After hearing the representative of the complainant and on perusal of the complaint, the reply given by First Opposite party and the notification issued in the Deccan Herald paper of July 15th of 2006 we find that the complainant has not come up with any specific grievance against the Opposite parties, but by making general allegations of deficiency in the service against the Second Opposite party has filed this Complaint. <br /> 5. On perusal of the contents of the complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant, his grievance in brief can be said that Second Opposite party failed to give him a copy of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Second Opposite party alleged to have caused delay in payment of dearness allowances etc., It is admitted by the complainant that when he approached the Second Opposite party for issue of a copy of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, the Second Opposite party expressed his ignorance about the very existence of the code containing guidelines of R.B.I., therefore it emerges that Second Opposite party was not aware of the existence of that code of the guidelines, therefore the question of Second Opposite party’s failure to provide him a copy of the guidelines cannot be held as deficient. It is not the case of the complainant that he after bringing to the notice of Second Opposite party about existence of guidelines issued by the R.B.I., he gave sometime to Second Opposite party to ascertain the availability of such guidelines and to provide a copy of such guidelines to him and that the second Opposite party has failed. Admittedly, the complainant approached the Managing Director of Canara Bank and got one such code book, therefore when the Second Opposite party was not provided with the copies of the code and since he was also not given an opportunity of knowing the existence of such guidelines and given time to get them the Second Opposite party could not be called as deficient.<br /> 6. The complainant in para 10 of his complaint and also in his affidavit evidence has contended as if the Second Opposite party has caused delay in payment of dearness relief arrears and other deficiencies in its service. But, the complainant is not either categorical or specific to prove that there has been any delay in disbursement of a particular dearness allowance or any other allowances for that matter due to him. The complainant is not able to prove before us as to when and in respect of which disbursement of various allowances delay has been caused and that has resulted in undue delay in the complainant getting the benefit of such dearness allowance. Therefore, in the absence of such a proof to prove the deficiency caused in respect of any particular claim or grievance of the complainant, the vague allegations of the complainant cannot be construed as deficiency. It is not the grievance of the complainant, further that any act or omission on the part of his Second Opposite party in discharge of its legal obligations has resulted in deficiency, for such he is entitled for claiming damages, nor it is the grievance of the complainant that in not following of any specific guidelines or guidelines of Reserve Bank of India by the Second Opposite party has resulted in their deficiency in service to him and he has suffered any loss or damage. Therefore, the complaint in our view is vague and general in nature and that the complainant since has failed to prove deficiency in service of Second Opposite party, the complaint cannot be allowed. The representative who represents the complainant is an office bearer of a Consumer Organization at Mysore, invited our attention to a publication issued in 15th July 2006 Deccan Herald daily newspaper under the heading “Code of Bank’s commitment for individual customers”, which is said to have been published at the instance of the Reserve Bank of India, contain certain guidelines in the form of Code to all the Banks as how the Banks should deal with their customers and also requiring of the branches to give copies of that code to all the existing customers and to the new customers as indicated therein. The representative of the complainant further submitted that despite the supply of this Code by the Reserve Bank of India to the subsidiary Banks, the Banks are not following the guidelines and they are also not issuing copies of code to the customers and sometime the Managers of the Banks are telling the customers of, having not received such copies and thus submitted to this Forum to direct the Fourth Opposite party, the Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore to see that sufficient number of copies of that Code referred to in the Deccan Herald paper are supplied to the branches with a strict instructions to all the branches to follow those guidelines. We find force in the contention of the representative of the Complainant in this regard and though the fourth opposite party to whom we have not issued notice on this Complaint but we feel it is just and it goes in consonance with the objective of the code if we make an observation requesting the Regional Manager, Reserve Bank of India to make available sufficient copies to all the relevant branches of the banks and to strictly follow the guidelines. With this observation we dispose off this Complaint as indicated below. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />