Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/199/2016

P.Ramesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Bank Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.Ramesh

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  14.12.2016

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.03.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 21^st   DAY OF MARCH 2018

 

C.C.NO.199/2016

 

B.Ramesh,

L-84, 10^th West Street,

Kamaraj Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.    

                                                                                         ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.The Branch Manager,

Indian Bank,

High Court Campus,

Chennai – 600 104.

 

2. The General Manager,

Indian Bank, Corporate Office,

No.254-260, Avvai Sanmugam Salai,

Chennai – 600 014.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.12.2016

Counsel for Complainant                      : Party in Person

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : M/s.Hemalatha Suresh,

                                                                    S.Velmurugan, G.S.Deepa,

O R D E R

 

BY M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L., MEMBER – I

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is having a savings bank account bearing number 844373824 in the 1^st opposite party’s branch. He is a practicing advocate in the High court. On 16.11.2016 at about 11 am he went to that branch to deposit a cheque for a value Rs.3000/- in his branch. By that time there was a very big queue over the branch to change the demonetized currencies.

          2. The Complainant went to the 1^st opposite party branch to deposit his cheque only, but he was denied to enter the branch itself. The security person advised him to join the queue for the demonetized currency. The complainant said to the security personnel that he has no business to stand in the demonetization queue, he just wants to deposit his cheque. He also referred the circular given by the RBI to maintain a separate queue for the customers. Then the bank manager came out and shouted to the complainant in singular and says that “I don’t have to obey the RBI guidance, here I am having the discretion to do what I want”.

          3. Due to the above act of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant suffered severe mental torture, so he made a complaint through internet on 16.11.2016 itself. The Complaint number is DEABD/E/2016/14326.  For that Indian bank grievance cell replied  by AGM (CSC)  and regretted for the inconvenience caused,  and also advised the opposite party branch to follow the RBI guidelines. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 16.11.2016 and for that there is no reply till date; this itself proves the deficiency of the opposite parties.

          4. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to  direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the complaint.         

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties deny all the averments made in the complaint. The opposite parties submits that the complainant has not come with clean hands. The complainant wantonly stated false allegations against the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party did not commit any wrong act against the complainant as alleged.

          6. The Opposite parties submits that all of a sudden on 08.11.2016 Govt. of India demonetized old Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- notes and that can be exchanged through bank with a limit of Rs.4,000/- per day by each person. The public crowded in front of all the banks including the opposite parties branch. The said queue has been formed and arranged to help the general public and customers, only with the help of state police.

7. The opposite party submits that as per the complainant averment the duty police refused to allow the complainant to enter into the opposite parties bank out of turn. The complainant is not ready to co-operate with the duty police instructions and he did not care about the request made by the public who had already waiting in front of the bank for all transactions. The Complainant refused to stand in queue and tries to enter into the opposite parties bank branch. Hence the duty police did not permit the complainant to enter into the bank.

          8. The opposite parties are not in a position to give any special treatment to the customer due to extraordinary situation prevalent at that time. The opposite parties submits as per allegations made in Para 2 that the 1^st opposite party used un-parlimentary words against the complainant is totally false and frivolous. No such incidence has happened on that day that the complainant only gave trouble to the other customers.

          9.  The opposite parties submits the complainant is not sustainable they only acted as per banking norms and in tune with RBI guidelines. Therefore the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Hence the above complaint is untenable and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

10. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

11. POINT NO :1        

It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an account holder with the 1^st opposite party on 16.11.2016, he went to his branch to deposit a cheque worth Rs.3000/- by that time he was unable to get into the branch to deposit the same and a long queue was there for exchanging old demonetized notes and there was no separate queue for bank customers to do their regular bank transactions as per the Ex-A7, RBI circular was there. Due to the heavy crowd the bank branch was unable to control the public those showed interest to exchange their old notes. The crowd was controlled only with the protection of the police. This situation prevailed  for about a month,  though necessary steps were taken by the bank officials they were unable to control the public. The daily limits for the exchange of the demonetized notes changed according to the prevailing situation by RBI. The banks get regular advice from RBI for their day to day business activities. The regulations get modified very frequently. Though the bank has taken necessary steps to maintain separate queue for the bank customers the crowd was unable to be managed by the bank officials so the control was assigned to state police and they assisted to regulate the crowd so the bank has no role to play in regulating the crowd.

          12. The customer alleged that the branch manager had used un-parlimentary words against the complainant has no proof other than complainant’s allegation though there is a very huge crowd no one turned against the branch manager or the regulating authority in this regard so we hold that the complaint allegation is false and frivolous one.

          13. The complaint made by the complainant through email to the Indian bank grievance cell was duly replied by them on 1^st December 2016 Ex-A3 by advising its branches (manger and the staffs of the branch) to follow meticulously RBI guidelines and it should not affect regular customers. It also regrets very much for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

          14. The very same apology on behalf of the branch for the inconvenience caused to the complainant is also made by the branch through Ex-A6. Hence we hold that the complainant over reacted in this regard. By the time the whole nation is under a very big financial restructuring so it is a bounden duty to every citizen to co-operate for this re-constructing act of the nation.

15. So, we conclude that opposite parties that have not committed any deficiency in service.

 

16. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st  day of March 2018.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Xerox copy of the  first page of the  Complainant’s

                                                     pass book

Ex.A2 dated 16.11.2016                   Xerox copy of the cheque issued to the

                                                     Complainant  

Ex.A3 dated 07.12.2016                   Copy of the online Complaint made to Indian

                                                     Bank

Ex.A4 dated16.11.2016                    Legal Notice sent to the opposite parties

Ex.A5 dated NIL                     Tract Consignment

Ex.A6 dated  NIL                    Copy of E-mail sent to Indian Bank

Ex.A7 dated 13.11.2016                   RBI’s Circular to banks

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES :

 

                                                ……NIL …..

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Complaint in brief:        cc no 199 of 2016

          The complainant is having a savings bank account bearing number 844373824 in the 1^st opposite party branch. He is a practicing advocate in the high court. On 16.11.2016 at about 11 am he went to that branch to deposit a cheque for a value Rs.3000/- in his branch. By that time there was a very big queue over the branch to change the demonetized currencies.

          The Complainant went to the 1^st opposite party branch to deposit his cheque only, but he was denied to enter the branch itself. The security person advised him to join the queue for the demonetized currency. The complainant asked the security personnel he has no business to ask him to stand in the demonetization queue, he just want to deposit his cheque. He also referred the circular given by the RBI to maintain a separate queue for the customers. Then the bank manager came out and shouted to the complainant in singular and says that “I don’t have to obey the RBI guidance, here I am having the discretion to do what I want”.

          Due to the above act of the 1^st opposite party, the complainant suffered severe mental torture, so he made a complaint through internet on 16.11.2016 itself. The Complaint number is DEABD/E/2016/14326.  For that Indian bank grievance cell replied and regretted for the inconvenience caused by AGM (CSC) and also advised the opposite party branch to follow the RBI guidelines. The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 16.11.2016 and for that there is no reply till date; this itself proves the deficiency of the opposite parties.

          Hence the complainant filed this complaint to  direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and another sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the complaint.

Version by opposite parties :

           The opposite parties deny all the averments made in the complaint. The opposite parties submits that the complainant has not come with clean hands. The complainant wantonly stated false allegations against the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party did not commit any wrong act against the complainant as alleged.

          The Opposite parties submits that all of a sudden on 08.11.2016 Govt. of India demonetized old Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes and that can be exchanged by the public through bank with a limit of Rs.4000/- per day for per person.The public crowded in front of all the banks including the opposite parties branch. The said queue has been formed and arranged to help the general public and customers only with the help of state police.

The opposite party submits that as per the complainant averment the duty police refused to allow the complainant to enter into the opposite parties bank out of turn. The complainant is not ready to cooperate with the duty police instructions and he did not care about the request made by the public who had already waiting in front of the bank for all transactions. The Complainant refused to stand in queue and tries to enter into the opposite parties bank branch. Hence the duty police did not permit the complainant to enter into the bank.

          The opposite parties are not in a position to give any special treatment to the customer due to extraordinary situation prevalent at that time.The opposite parties submits as per allegations made in Para 2 that the 1^st opposite party used unparlimentary words against the complainant is totally false and frivolous.No such incidence has happened on that day the complainant only gave trouble to the other customers.

           The opposite parties submits the complainant is not sustainable they only acted as per banking norms and in tune with RBI guidelines. Therefore the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant. Hence the above complaint is untenable and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed.

Points for consideration:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extend?

 

Point no:1

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant is an account holder with the 1^st opposite party on 16.11.2016, he went to his branch to deposit a cheque worth Rs.3000/- by the time he was unable to get into the branch to deposit the same and a long queue was there for exchanging old demonetized notes and there was no separate queue for bank customers to do their regular bank transactions though Ex-A7, RBI circular was there. Due to the heavy crowd the bank branch was unable to control the public those showed interest to exchange their old notes. The crowd was controlled only with the protection of the police. This situation prevail for about a month though necessary steps are taken by the bank officials they were unable to control the public. The daily limits for the exchange of the demonetized notes changed according to the prevailing situation by RBI. The banks get regular advice from RBI for their day to day business activities. The regulations get modified very frequently. Though the bank has taken necessary steps to maintain separate queue for the bank customers the crowd was unable to be managed by the bank officials so the control was assigned to state police and they assisted to regulate the crowd so the bank has no role on play on regulating the crowd.

          The customer alleged that the branch manager had used unparlimentary words against the complainant has no proof other than complainant’s allegation though there is a very huge crowd no one turned against the branch manager or the regulating authority in this regard so we hold that the complaint allegation is false and frivolous one.

          The complaint made by the complainant through email to the Indian bank grievance cell was duly replied by them on 1^st December 2016 Ex-A3 by advising its branches (manger and the staffs of the branch) to follow meticulously RBI guidelines and it should not affect regular customers. It also regrets very much for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.

          The very same apology on behalf of the branch for the inconvenience caused to the complainant is also made by the branch through Ex-A6. Hence we hold that the complainant over reacted in this regard. By the time the whole nation is under a very big financial restructuring so it is a bounden duty to every citizen to cooperate for this restructuring act of the nation.

So, we conclude that opposite parties that have not committed any deficiency in service.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to the steno- Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this   21^st day of March 2018.