BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 02^ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. Give written apology from Mr.Sashi jagdishan (MD, HDFC) for not addressing customers complaint, use of unfair trade practice, ordering HDFC to tag customer as NRR – no response required and putting me at risk under IPC 138 by changing signature at account level without my permission/ knowledge by HDFC. Also created very inconvenience situation for handling, managing and tracking transactional from investments, claims, salary account and savings account having balance around Rs.21.3 lacs (as on 13 May 2022)
2. Pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the man hours spent and problems faced till date in tracking all financial transaction including my weekly account balance for both accounts, reimbursement, FD’s, investments, claims (50,000 to 1 lacs per month), salary & all other credit & debit due change of services/alerts by HDFC without consent, time and energy to read understand RBI guidelines & consumer protection act 2019, which have affected my work life and personal life which would also affect my future performance appraisal at work place, salary et., and loss of opportunities. Also for creating hazardous situation for handle, manage and track transactional from my investments, claims, future investments, salary account and savings account having balance around Rs.21.3 lacs (Monthly salary/claims to be credited in HDFC salary bank account would be around 80,000 to 2 lacs).
3. Pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards physical strain and mental agony in the due courses along with the difficulty faced suffered by the complainant(compensation) to track all financials and HDFC multiple executives along with explaining same issue along with the initial commitments by HDFC to acquire the business, during due course affecting my health with hypertension.
4. Pay a sum of Rs.300/- towards cost of this petition (Cost)
5. Direct the respondents to pay all the costs of litigation(travel, printouts etc.,)

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant was approached by the OP bank executive Mr.Rakesh on 13.08.2021 on telephonic call and on whatsapp for opening salary account in the bank.  He has explained the entire process and also requested the complainant to do all process through online and sent all steps on whatsapp with employee code etc., the online account opening process was done on 14.08.2021 by the complainant which was not successful and a reference/application number was generated and confirmation email stated that HDFC representative get in touch with you soon to complete the accounting process.  The same information and reference number was shared by the complainant with the OP bank executive through whatsapp.

3. It is further case of the complainant that the OP bank executive confirmed him that online account opening was not successful due to his previous relationship with the bank.  The system identify his bank in dedupe process despite having different email ID and mobile number in the new application and also confirmed that offline process would be done to complete account opening. 
4. The complainant requested to complete the offline process of new salary account with HDFC and explained the complete previous relationship details and requirement to Mr.Rakesh, Mr.Anappa and Mr.Shylesh, the HDFC bankers for providing new bankers account with new email ID, mobile umber and customer ID.  
5. The complainant wanted to attach new different email and mobile number for new salary account for better tacking of all transactions and better accounting of reimbursement received from his organization as complainant has extensive travelling job.  The different email ID and mobile number would also avoid and confusion between new account and old account transaction as it would be received on different email ID and mobile numbers.  The complainant has clearly explained all respective representative of OP bank time to time that both account should operate separately with separate email ID, mobile number and insta sms alerts like weekly balance updates, all credit and debit updates.
6. The complainant received mobile number and email ID updation two emails for his old savings SB account on 25.09.2021.  The banking credentials was changed by the bank without any consent or knowledge of the complainant. The complainants new customer ID for new salary account of Bangalore and internet banking was disabled on 25.09.2021 by the OP bank without any consent or knowledge of the complainant. The SMS and email alert service partially stopped from 25.09.2021 for both accounts. The complainant stopped get in account balance updated for new salary account and lots credit and debit alerts also stopped.  
7. The complainants has raised the concern with the OP for unauthorized changed made in his account on 28.09.2021 and he also informed the customer service but they denied to register any complaint and suggested to contact HDFC branch.  The HDFC Bocaro steel city branch denied any changes or request being processed from that branch. An email complaint was sent to OP on 28.09.2021.  The OP has replied on 06.10.2021 stating that the banking credential were changed as per account opening form submitted in the Bangalore branch. The complainant has never requested the OP bank to do any changes in his old savings bank account in Bocaro Steel City, Jarkhand after new account opening with new customer ID. And with different email ID and mobile number. The complainant never selected option for merging of the account during account opening process or never filed request for merger of both the accounts.  Hence the complainant raised objection to OP on 07.10.2021 by mail.  The OP executive called the complainant to understand the issue and requested some time to address the problem.  The OP has informed the complainant, they won’t take any confirmation or consent for changing the mobile number and email ID and the OP did not inform the complainant about the signature mismatch between both the customer ID and also informed the complainant that the HDFC do provide business customer multiple customer IDs, having one pan card.  
8. After that the complainant wrote a detail mail to OP on 13.10.2021 highlighting the problems and also his request stating that the OP have changed the banking credentials without his consent and knowledge and closed his customer ID.  The OP have given wrong and incomplete information to RBI grievance system that its banking Ombudsmen to close the complaint of the complainant and to get a favourable order in their favour.  They have made wrongful and misrepresentation of facts and they have stopped the SMS alert and messages.  The MD of the OP bank has also ordered their employees to block his complaint and emails and tagged him as NRR-No response required. 
9. The OP have also tried to build pressure on complainant by complaining to his current employer. The OP have also made this complainant to spent extra 4 to 5 hours every week to check and verify each and every transaction of his both accounts in the OP bank.  The OP bank have also charged insta alert charges for both the accounts for the financial year 2020-21.
10. Under these circumstances the OPs have committed deficiency of service and hence the complainant has filed this complaint.   
11. In response to the notice, OP appears and files version.
12. The case of the OP is that the complaint is a abuse of process of law and is misconcede. The claims made by the complainant is not permissible.  The bank and their officer are not responsible for the complainants illegal demand and presumption of the validity of different customer IDs for the same person. There is no financial loss attributed due to self confusion caused by the complainant.
13. It is the specific objection raised by the OP that as per RBI rules one can hold one pan card, one aadhar card and one bank and one customer ID.  But the complainant suppressed this information when he approached the bank for the second time for a saving salary account with a second customer ID which is illegal.  The complainant could not have two different credentials for the same pan number. The complainant had a pre-existing relationship with the OP bank which was masked by him initially for his benefit.  The customer is expected to the loyal and faithful, he must practice morals and ethics.  When the complainant had one account with one customer ID and he suppressed these facts while opening the second account and then claim that this OP bank has illegally tracked his account. As per the RBI rules every bank has the legal authority to verify their customers details which are part of their records. The bank checking own records is not illegal, but suppressing these material facts from the bank is illegal and unethical on the part of the complainant and this OP is not guilty of causing any wrong to the complainant.
14. It is further case of the OP that it was explicitly asked each individual in the account opening form with the mandatory condition to confirm the clause that “I confirm that I do not have any existing customer ID/customer ID apart from the one mentioned.  In case found otherwise the bank reserves the right to consolidate the customer ID as it may decide without any prior notice to me.” According to the above statement the bank has the right to merge the account credential of its customer accordingly if he is found using more than one account in the same bank with different customer IDs without the consent of the customers as it is the legality i.e., necessary to be mandatory and fulfill as per RBI for avoiding any illegality.  
15. It is further case of the OP that the complainant producing different signatures or different accounts which pose the intention as different personalities in the eyes of the bank.  This exerts ill-intention of the customer himself. The complainant has intentionally willfully committed an illegal act by trying to open an account with second customer ID by sharing a new address, new signature etc.  All these acts of the complainant were voluntary and the complainant is a well educated tech-savvy person, therefore cannot make this kind of unethical activities.  
16. The complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable and baseless and none of the provisions stated by the complainant under this C.P. Act were violated by this OP bank.  This complaint is an abuse of process of law and according to RBI guidelines is not an offence.  The respect for national policy and following public policy is the duty of every Indian and while acting thereon if any other individual feel disrespected and misunderstands feelings that does not amount deficiency.  The nation and national policy are the first and only priority of each one. Hence the OP prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

17. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 02 documents.  Affidavit evidence of OP has been filed and OP relies on 06 documents.
18. Heard the arguments of both the parties  Perused the written arguments filed by both the parties.
19. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

20. Our answers to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:  Negative

      Point No.2 : Negative

      Point No.3 : As per final orders

REASONS

21. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion. 
22. The complainant had approached the OP bank to open a new account at Marathahalli branch during August 2021.  The complainant has requested the OP bank to open an entirely new salary account even though he had a old account with Bocaro Branch of the OP since May 2011. When the OP bank have tried to open the online account it was unsuccessful due to his previous bank account in the same bank.  The system had identified his pan number in dedupe process despite having different email ID and mobile number in the new application and also confirmed that offline process would be done to complete the account opening.  
23. After that the complainant insisted the OP bank to issue a new customer ID which is not at all permissible.  Hence the OP bank have refused to issue the new customer ID as per the request of the complainant.
24. After that the complainant has approached this Commission after rejection of his complaint by the RBI Ombudsmen.
25. It is the main grievance of the complainant that the OP bank sold new salary account with false promise using unfair practice and commitments even though he was informed about his previous relationship with the OP bank on 17.08.2021.
26. It is further grievance of the complainant that the OP have committed deficiency of service by not providing correct information about HDFC banking process, not following RBI guideline of “dedupe” period before account opening and not taken consent from the complainant about customer IDs merger and not taken consent about one of his HDFC customer ID deactivation and for changing mobile number for old HDFC account and for changing address for old HDFC account and for changing SMS insta alert service and not informed the complainant about signature mismatch between customer IDs via email, HDFC branch relationship manager etc.  The OP bank further have not informed about signature change done for the complainant bank account without his consent or knowledge which increased the complainant’s financial and legal risk of cheque bounce due to signature mismatch u/s 138 of N.I. Act.  It is further grievance of the complainant that he was receiving almost every second date promotional emails from OP bank and telephonic call for new product sells from the OP bank but OP bank did not contacted the complainant through email, mobile regarding sign address etc.
27. It is further grievance of the complainant that the OP have closed the complaint raised by the complainant with misrepresentation of facts and without mutual understanding or agreement dated 30.10.2021 which is one sided.
28. It is also grievance of the complainant that the OP bank unauthorizedly used the KYC document without consent or knowledge or paper work and they have provided wrong and incomplete information to RBI grievance system i.e., the Banking Ombudsmen and they have closed the complaint and obtained a favourable order in their favour.  The OP bank have also tagged the complainant as per the order of their MD namely Mr.Shashi Jagadeeshan on 17.12.2021 as “NRR – No Response Required”.  
29. In addition to this the OP have tried to build pressure on complainant by complaining to his current employer and also made the complainant to spend his extra four to five hours every week to check and verify each and every transaction of his both accounts in the OP bank.  Even though his email mobile number, SMS alerts and email alerts address has been changed old /previous HDFC account.  The OP bank has also charged extra amount for insta alert charges for the financial year 20-2021 even though they have not provided the service.  
30. The complainant in support of his complaint has relied on two documents.  Ex.P2 is the bunch of email correspondence of complainant with OP.  
31. On the other hand the OP in order to prove their contention have examined their cluster head Mr.Ramanathan Krishnamurthy, the authorized officer and also relied on six documents.
32. Document No.1 is the account opening form + KYC dated 23.05.2011 along with the complainants election card and pan card and other forms duly filled. Document No.2 is the account opening form + KYC dated 18.08.2021 duly filled, document No.3 is the RBI circular UCIC dated 08.06.2012 issued by the Chief General Manager. Document No.4 is the bunch of emails and document No.5 is the bunch of letters sent to complainant from OP bank and document No.6 is the bank statement.
33. The OP have clearly taken their contention the complainant has approached their bank for opening a salary account but suppressed the mandatory fact i.e., non disclosure of old banking relationship – customer ID.  He has also given further declaration and signed form No.80 stating that “I confirm that I do not have any existing customer ID/customer ID apart from the one mentioned.  In case found otherwise the bank reserves the right to consolidate the customer ID as it may decide without any prior notice to me.” According to the above statement the bank has the right to merge the account credential of its customer accordingly if he is found using more than one account in the same bank with different customer IDs without the consent of the customers as it is the legality i.e., necessary to be mandatory and fulfilled as per RBI circular for avoiding any illegality. 
34. It is further case of the OP that the complainant producing different signatures or different accounts which pose the intention as different personalities in the eyes of the bank.  This exerts ill-intention of the customer himself. The complainant has intentionally willfully committed an illegal act by trying to open an account with second customer ID by sharing a new address, new signature etc.  All these acts of the complainant were voluntary and the complainant is a well educated tech-savvy person, therefore cannot make this kind of unethical activities. 
35. It is the specific contention taken by the OP that the RBI circular dated 08.06.2012 binding on every Indian Bank which is issued to KYC i.e., know your customer / anti money laundering(AML) / combating of financing of terrorism (CFT) guidelines – unique customer identification code (UCIC) for bank customers in India.  The first part of this RBI notification is directive and not suggestive or optional. Hence the OP bank has taken necessary precaution and all emails relied upon are the proof of the service by all 11 officers responding to the complainant and tried to convince him that they have no powers to go against RBI and national policy.
36. When once the complainant has gave the declaration in form No.80 the bank authorities have got the powers to merge the account credentials of its customers if the customer is found using more than one account in the same bank with different customer IDs without the consent of the customers, as it is legal and mandatory to fulfill the RBI circular for avoiding any illegality.
37. It is also clear from the documents and the objections raised by the OP bank that the complainant had suppressed in mentioning about his old account when he has tried to open the new account and also gave the declaration stating that he don’t have an alternative customer ID and which clearly amounts to breach of contract and trust.
38. Every customer of the bank is expected to be loyal and faithful, he must practice moral and ethics in his personal life.  When the complainant himself had suppressed mentioning about the old account, the OP bank has traced his old account.  After that the complainant has raised the complaint that the OP bank has illegally tracked his account.  Even though the OP bank authorities have clearly explained about the situation the complainant has not stopped raising complaints before the entire OP authorities upto MD. The bank has the right to merge the account credentials of his customer accordingly if the customer is found using more than one account in the same bank with different customer IDs without the consent of the customers as it is the legality i.e., necessary to be mandatory and to be fulfilled as per RBI for avoiding any illegality.  The complainant has insisted the OP for issue of two different IDs even though it is not at all possible as per the RBI circular dated 08.06.2012. As per the policy one individual one customer ID which is linked to customer’s pan card and aadhar card and allowed to open as many accounts under one customer ID.
39. The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence in support of his contention in order to establish the negligence and deficiency of service committed by the OP bank.  The complainant being an educated person and well worsed with the internet banking has demanded the OP bank and insisted them for issue of two ID cards.  When the OP has refused to issue the same as per their banking policy and RBI rules the complainant has filed this complaint by making allegations against the OP under deficiency of service and under the C.P. Act.  The complaint filed by the complainant is not at all maintainable since the demand made by the complainant is illegal and it is against the public policy and against the RBI circular and rules.  Hence we answer point No.1 and 2 in negative.
40. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is Dismissed with no cost.
2. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 02^nd day of FEBRUARY, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;