Complaint filed on: 08/06/2022
Complaint disposed on: 16/03/2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,SOUTH GOA AT MARGAO
CORAM: SHRI SANJAY MOTIRAM CHODANKAR, PRESIDENT
SMT. NELLY PEREIRA E D’SILVA, MEMBER
SHRI JAYSON RODRIGUES, MEMBER
Complaint No. 33/2022
Dr. Domingos Alias Dr. D. J. De Souza
C/O Luz Lab, B/H Lily Garments, New Market.
Margao Goa 403 601 .….Complainant
V/s.
Manager,
Axis Bank, Margao Branch,
Opposite B.P.S Club, Pajifond, Margao Goa ..…Opposite Party
Complainant present in person at time of hearings and arguments and absent at the time of passing of judgment.
Adv. S. Mukadam present at the time of hearings and arguments and absent at the time of passing of Judgment.
JUDGEMENT
(Per Mr. Jayson Rodrigues, Member)
- This Judgment and Order shall dispose of the Complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short “The C.P. Act”).
The brief facts of the case are as under:
- The present complaint has been filed by the Complainant who is a senior citizen and practicing pathologist of Margao, Goa for last 20 years, alleging deficiency of service, Restrictive and Unfair trade practices against Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as OP) Axis Bank, formerly known as UTI Bank between 1993-2007 with whom he has banking relation for past 30 years. OP is presently one of the largest private sector Bank in India offering an entire spectrum of financial services for personal and corporate banking. The Complaint is filed for freezing/blocking his account due to CIF merger and also blocking his debit card due to a hacking attempt after intimations to the Complainant. CIF merger is the process of merging all accounts of a person under one single CIF (Customer Information File).
- The case of the Complainant is that, this complaint deals with Restrictive and Unfair trade practices, in which the OP is seen freezing the Complainant’s S/B A/c 121010100086745 without the Complainant’s consent/intimation, thereby violating the trust between the Complainant and the OP, thus confirming deficiency of service. The S/B Account No. 121010100086745 was opened 30 years back and the Complainant has always kept sufficient funds, resulting in labeling the account as ‘priority one’ by the OP. In March 2021 the said S/B A/c 121010100086745 was frozen due to the presence of a term deposit of Rs. 1,10,000/-, resulting in multiple IDs which was settled by the Complainant going to the bank of the OP. The freezing of the S/B A/c 121010100086745, was carried out without any consent/intimation to the Complainant on his e-mail or through his mobile number 9226232368, resulting in deficiency of service. This has happened number of times and very recently on 25/5/2022. Similarly the Complainant’s debit card which was issued in January 2022 has been blocked since 04/05/2022. The Complainant visited Margao Br. of OP bank twice and has met Mr. Shatanu/Navin regarding the activation of his debit card No 4505 0301 1144 5739,but has not been resolved till 01/06/2022. The Complainant has not been able to use the card in retail stores/petrol pumps since 04/05/2022 and this is clearly deficiency of service. The Complainant has not taken any loan/nor have any outstanding amount to pay the OP, and the OP has violated every banking rules.
4. Complainant after facing inconvenience has come forward to this District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with this complaint claiming the following reliefs:
A. Interim relief: Activate account and debit card immediately.
B. Punitive damages of Rs.80,000/- for suspending S/B Account without consent /authorization and without any viable notice on E-
mail/mobile number, resulting in severe mental stress and loss towards creditors.
C. Costs of Rs.10,000/- for forcing to come to the Consumer Court for redressal of grievance.
D. Any other relief in the interest of justice.
5. The Complainant has examined himself by filing Affidavit-in-evidence in support of the complaint. He has produced the following documents:
a. Xerox copy of SMS from OP at Exhibit ‘3’.
b. Xerox copy of document signed by Bank official dated 12.03.2021 at Exhibit ‘4’
6. OP filed their written version and also preliminary objections, stating that the present Complainant is a known litigant with antecedent of filing the vexatious and frivolous complaints. OP submitted that there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the bank as the freezing of the accounts was system operated (fully computerized/ digitalized) and the same was due to creation of the multiple customer ID's. OP submitted that the blocking of the card was for the security reasons as there was a suspected attempt of fraud in customer's account through his debit card for which the back end team of the Bank had intimated to the Complainant and was requested to approach the Bank for issuance of new card. The action of blocking of the card is also fully automated process where the Branch or any other person has no control. The Complainant has already filed an Appeal in the Hon'ble State Commission bearing First Appeal No. 5/2022 which is subjudice also constitutes vexatious litigation. The Complainant therefore, ought not to be entertained and complaint be dismissed with heavy and exemplary costs. The OP denies freezing the S/B Account 121010100086745 without the Complainant’s consent/intimation. The OP states that the freezing of the accounts was entirely due to the creation of multiple of CIF ID's and the same are auto generated by the system. It is denied that the freezing of the account of the Complainant was carried without any Complainant’s intimation/consent. The OP states that the intimation of the freezing/blocking of the account was sent to the Complainant by way of system generated SMS. The OP states that the Complainant was requested time and again to complete the formalities for the merger of the accounts and the same was completed when the Complainant visited the office on or about 23/06/2022. The OP states that it is true that the card of the Complainant has been blocked, however, the same was done for security purpose as certain attempts with intention of fraud was observed in the account of the Complainant through debit card and hence as a precautionary measure to safeguard the interest of the Complainant the card was blocked with due intimation given to the Complainant by backhand team. The request was also made to the Complainant to visit the bank for issuance of new card and all the formalities pertaining to the card and the same was issued on 23/06/2022. With reference to prayers, the OP stated that the account of the Complainant is active and he has been issued a fresh debit card. The blocking/freezing of the account was system generated act which is beyond the control of the Bank employees and hence there is no deficiency in service and no prayer can be granted as nothing survives in the complaint. The Complainant is not entitled for any damages as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank. In view of the above it is therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
7. The OP has examined Mr. Nitin Satardekar, Branch Head-AVP of OP by filing an affidavit in evidence in defence. He has produced the following documents:
- Xerox copy of cheque No. 403020 dated 18.05.2022 for Rs. 34,000/- at Exhibit ‘15’.
- . Xerox copy of cheque memo dated 25.05.2022 at Exhibit ‘16’
- Xerox copy of RTI letter from the Complainant at Exhibit ‘17’.
- the Complainant’s S/B Account without consent and blocking his debit card without proper explanation or notice. The Complainant has alleged that the freezing of the account resulted in loss of reputation and credibility with creditors and suppliers. The OP has denied the allegations and has submitted that the freezing of the account was due to system-generated multiple IDs and the blocking of the debit card was for security reasons as there was a suspected attempt of fraud in customer's account through his debit card for which the back-end team of the Bank had intimated to the Complainant and was requested to approach the Bank for issuance of new card.
9. After perusing the submissions of both the parties, this Commission finds that the case is devoid of merit and the complaint must
be dismissed. The reasons for this finding are detailed below:
- The Complainant has submitted that the freezing of the S/B Account without notice or consent constitutes a violation of trust and amounts to deficiency of service. The Complainant has also alleged that this has happened multiple times and most recently on 25/5/2022. The Complainant further claims that the blocking of the debit card since 04/05/2022 constitutes deficiency of service, as he has been unable to use the card for retail transactions.
- On the other hand, the OP has submitted that the freezing of the account was a system-generated act due to multiple IDs, and that the blocking of the debit card was for security reasons as there was a suspected attempt at fraud. The OP also submitted that the Complainant is a known litigant with a history of filing vexatious and frivolous complaints.
Upon consideration of the evidence presented the Commission finds that the freezing of the S/B Account and the blocking of the debit card were both genuine actions taken by the bank. The freezing of the account was due to multiple IDs created by the system, and the blocking of the card was due to a suspected attempt at fraud. The Commission also finds that the Complainant was informed of the freezing of the account and was also requested to complete formalities for the merger of accounts, which was eventually completed when the Complainant visited the bank on or about 23/06/2022. The OP also issued a new debit card to the Complainant during the same period. It is difficult to believe that the Complainant was not informed especially when his mobile number is registered with his account as the intimation event itself might have triggered the Complainant to visit the bank during mid of 2022 where his grievances were resolved. Various popular core-banking systems e.g. Temenos T24, Infosys Finacle, Oracle Flexcube, TCS BaNCS, IBM AS400, etc. process daily banking transactions and post updates to accounts and other financial records and also trigger events. Also, automation has taken over the world by simplifying processes through process automation systems used in banks e.g. BMC's Control-M, Broadcom's Dollar Universe, etc. Long gone are those days where account ledgers were maintained through physical book-keeping and also lack of speedy communication.
The cheque No 403020 issued on 25/5/22 from S/B A/C No 121010100086745, was returned unpaid and the same was notified to this Complainant via SMS which is crystal clear in Exhibit ‘3’.
“Axis Bank,AXISBK
15-25 1:53 PM
Cheque no. 403020 issued from your A/c no. XX6745
has been returned unpaid on 25-05-22.
Pls contact your branch for any query - Axis Bank”
This also clearly proves that the Complainant has successfully registered his mobile number with his bank account and is receiving important updates/notifications. The bank has followed the necessary procedures and has communicated the same to the Complainant. Once the mobile number is successfully registered with the account for notifications/updates the OP’s core-banking system generates notifications based on configured triggers through the SMS gateway in a prescribed format. The SMS further mentions generally to contact your Axis Bank branch for any query. The cheque issued on 18/05/2022 from the Complainant’s S/B Account to Better Life Corporation for Rs.34,000 returned unpaid due to issues with the said A/C 121010100086745 and the same was resolved after visiting the Branch.The Complainant who is also the proprietor of M/s. Luz Lab & Eliza Test Center, Margao, Goa alleging that the freezing of the account resulted in loss of reputation and credibility with creditors and suppliers is difficult to believe as he may be also using backup accounts including a 30 year old account with PNB S/B A/C No. 10782100017220 which he disclosed in an appeal filed with the Hon'ble State Commission bearing First Appeal No. 33 of 2022.
Since every core banking system after careful thoughts are implemented in a bank, the same may be customized by the stakeholders through proper channels addressed to the IT Change Management team in the form of standard/regular/emergency releases. There is always scope for improvement within any system and all Banks should strive towards continual service improvement. Banks can grow and be productive only when their customers are happy. As Bank cheques pass through the cheque clearing process there may be delay in receiving SMS. Also, Bank cards with the card holder’s name imprinted on the card usually passes through a card embossing process which personalizes the card and the same along with the card pin, card letter, etc. sometimes could take a while although be aligned with the Banks standards of policies and procedures.
This Commission finds that submissions of the OP are reasonable, and the Complainant has not provided any evidence to refute it. The Complainant has also not denied the OP's submission that a new card was issued to him and the same is fully functional. In case the debit card information has been compromised it is safer to move on with a new bank debit card. Thus, the Commission finds that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP and that the allegations made by the Complainant are baseless. The Complainant's allegations are without merit. Presently there is no dispute as the account of the Complainant is active and he has also been issued the fresh debit card.
The OP has submitted that the Complainant is a known litigant with a history of filing vexatious and frivolous complaints. We are aware of the many cases filed by the Complainant and the orders passed within this Commission during the past and also the appeals in the Hon'ble State Commission. The right to approach a consumer commission must be exercised responsibly by every consumer and only in cases where there is a genuine consumer dispute.
Upon consideration of the evidence presented, this Commission finds that the allegations made by the Complainant are baseless and the freezing of the account and the blocking of the debit card were legitimate actions taken by the bank. The Commission also finds that the complaint filed by the Complainant is frivolous, and is intended to harass the bank. The Commission directs the Complainant to refrain from filing frivolous complaints in the future. We also direct the bank to improve their communication process and ensure that customers are adequately informed of any such action taken by the bank. As Information Security is of prime importance to any bank, OP should strive in safeguarding the interest of the customers.
In conclusion, this Commission reiterates the importance of maintaining a healthy relationship between consumers and service providers and encourages both parties to work towards resolving any issues amicably, rather than resorting to legal recourse without sufficient evidence or justification. 30 years relationship is indeed a long-term relationship and both parties should make every effort to co-operate professionally.
In view of the above, the Commission dismisses the complaint filed by the Complainant with no cost imposed.
Pronounced in open Court. Proceedings closed.
(Mr. Sanjay Motiram Chodankar)
President
(Ms. Nelly H. Pereira e D’Silva)
Member
(Mr. Jayson Rodrigues)
Member
