Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

78/2014

S.Vijayakumar, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr.Phoba-General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.Nagarathinam

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  15.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  30.03.2017

 

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

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 30^th DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

C.C.NO.78/2014

 

 

 

Mr.S.Vijayakumar,

1^st Floor, Rear Block,

Catholic Centre,

New No.108, Old No.64,

Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1. Mr.Phoba,

General Manager (Head Liabilities),

ICICI Bank Ltd.,

ICICI bank Towers,

Bandra – kurla Complex,

Mumbai – 51.

 

2.Mr.A.Palta,

Zonal Head, ICICI Bank Ltd.,

ICICI Bank Towes, Bandra-kurla complex,

Mumbai – 51.

 

3. The Nodal Officer,

ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai – 51.

 

 

4.Mrs.Chanda Kochar,

MD/CEO, ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Bank Towers,

Bandra-Kurla complex, Mumbai – 51.

 

5.The Branch Manager,

ICICI BankLtd., Prakash Presidium,

110, Nungambakkam High Road,

Chennai – 34.

 

6. Banking Ombudsman,

S.Ganesh, C/o Reserve Bank of India,

Fort Glacis, Chennai – 1.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 17.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.M.Nagarathinam & G.Narmadha

Counsel for 1 to 5 Opposite Parties         : M/s.Sai Krishnan Associates

 

Counsel for 6^th Opposite Party                      : Party in person

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant  claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for mental agony and hardship caused to him with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

 

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is an account holder of the Saving Bank Account No.000901001789 in the branch of the 5^th Opposite Party. He had been a valued customer of the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 for many years, having various accounts such as savings, Fixed Deposits and Recurring deposit in the branch of the 5^th Opposite Party. The Complainant has been using the internet banking facility for his routine professional work and also to transfer of funds to pay the bills and to make payments for income tax. He has been utilizing the internet banking for quite some time and has never come across any problem in operating his account through internet banking. The Complainant was shocked and surprised to note that the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 had blocked internet facility, since end of September 2013 without even putting the Complainant on notice. The communication dated 31.10.2013 sent on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4 to the Complainant, was the KYC documents have not been submitted to the branch, despite letters, and SMS. No such communication was sent to the Complainant in writing and no such SMS was received. Before doing so, it should put the customer in notice. The fourth Opposite Party had stated in the communication dated 31.10.2013 that the RBI in its guidelines, requested for periodical update and the identification of the customer regularly. It is correct that  no such guidelines were issued by the RBI to discontinue the internet facility to the customer without putting them in notice on the family  to the customer without putting them in notice on the flimsy reasons such a non furnishing of KYC documents. The act of the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 in deactivating the internet facility to the savings account of the Complainant is thoroughly unauthorized. On 18.10.2013 he sent an e-mail to the 1^st Opposite Party informing them of the submission of the KYC documents and requesting that his account will be reactivated immediately. In response to the said e-mail he was informed by one Mr.Vamshikrishna that the matter will be looked into and that Opposite Parties 1 to 5 will revert back to the Complainant by 23.10.2013. The Complainant had sent a notice dated 18.10.2013 to the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 explaining his grievance in detail and requesting that the matter should be resolved immediately. In response to the same one Mr.Vamshikrishna, Custom Service Manager employed by the Opposite Party had contacted the Complainant through telephone on 24.10.2013 and informed the Complainant that internet banking is activated and that he regretted for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties 1 to 5 had not reactivated the said account there was no proper response to the inconvenience caused to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties 1 to 5 are accountable to the inconvenience, physical and mental agony caused to the Complainant. The Complainant submits that he sent a letter 20.01.2014 to the Banking Ombudsman contending that he had failed to discharge his duty as a public authority by merely reiterating whatever was said by the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 in respect of blocking of internet facility.  He had suffered loss in his business harassment and mental agony to him. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for compensation with cost of the Complaint.    

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 1^st to 5^th  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had opened a savings bank account No.000901001789 in the Opposite Party branch situated at Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034 and subsequently the said savings account was transferred to the Opposite Party branch situated at Catholic Centre, 64, Armenian Street, Chennai – 600 001.Reserve Bank of India has set a guideline by a circular dated 01.07.2013 to close bank accounts in cases where the KYC details of the customers are not updated for the purpose of implementing the recommendations made by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) on Anti Money Laundering (AML) standards and on combating Fianancing to Terrorism (CFT). Based on the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India a text message/SMS was communicated to customers who have not updated their KYC details with the Opposite Parties bank. As in the case of the Complainant herein a text message was communicated to update the KYC details of the Complainant. Subsequently on 20.05.2013 another text message has been sent to the registered mobile number of the Complainant to update the KYC details of the Complainant failing which the Opposite Parties bank shall be constrained to block the internet banking services of the Complainant. The Opposite Parties bank left with no option blocked the Internet Banking Facility of the Complainant on 01.10.2013 only with limited exposure through the ‘Mobile Banking Facility’ provided by the Opposite Party bank. Even assuming the Complainant  had handed over the KYC documents to re-activate the Internet Banking Facility to the branch manager on 04.10.2013 with  that respect the Complainant had not filed any proof of acknowledgement for submitting the KYC details to the Opposite Parties bank. It is pertinent to note here that the Complainant was not deprived from operating his Savings Bank Account does not have any legal sanctity. The Internet Banking Facility was completely authorized by the Opposite Parties bank for operation from 17.10.2013. The Complainant had any issues with the Opposite Parties bank the Complainant could have filed a Complaint before this Hon’ble Forum instead of sending numerous letters and communications to the Opposite Parties bank officials. It is clearly evident from the act of the Complainant that the Complainant wants to rope in all the officials of the Opposite Parties bank unnecessarily in the present Complaint for his wrongful gain.  The Banking Ombudsman after examining the Complaint filed by this Complainant rejected the Complaint and observed that the Opposite Parties bank acted as per guidelines of the RBI and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties bank. The Complainant had willfully and wantonly suppressed such facts and materials in order to force the bank for wrongful submission and for his illegal gain. Hence this Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE 6^th  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This Opposite Party has not rendered any service to the Complainant. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and this Opposite Party. This Opposite Party is not a party to the alleged decisions of withdrawn the net banking facility to the Complainant. Hence the Complaint is not Consumer in respect of this Opposite Party  and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

4. 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?

5. POINT NO :1

          It is an admitted fact that the Complainant opened a Saving Bank Account No.000901001789 with the 5^th Opposite Party and he has been using that account through internet banking facility for his routine professional work to transfer of funds to pay the bills and to make payments for income tax and while using such a internet banking facility, the Opposite Party had blocked such internet facility by end of September 2013 in respect of the Complainant’s above said Saving Account.

          6. The Complainant contended that no notice was put to him before disconnecting his internet banking facility inspite of that the Opposite Parties are bound to put on notice the Complainant before blocking            his account and further the Complainant and that the 4^th Opposite Party sent a communication dated 31.10.2013 that the Complainant have not submitted KYC document to the branch in spite of letter e-mail and SMS to him and actually no such SMS was received by the Complainant and therefore  the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service in blocking the internet banking  of the Complainant.

          7. The Opposite Parties 1 to 5 are contended that the 5^th Opposite Party only is the banker of the Complainant and rendered service to him and the Opposite Party 1 to 4 have not rendered any service to him and the Opposite Parties sent SMS to comply KYC on 27.04.2013, 20.05.2013  to comply KYC and however the Complainant had not compiled the same and hence for non compliance of KYC, the Internet Banking facility was stopped on 13.09.2013 after complying KYC details by the Complainant on 04.10.2013, the Internet Banking was activated on 17.10.2013 and therefore the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service and prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

          8. It is  an admitted fact are that the internet banking of the Complainant was stopped on 30.09.2013. The Opposite Parties would state that on 27.04.2013 and 20.05.2013 sent SMS requiring the Complainant to comply KYC norms. The Complainant would state that he did not receive such SMS. Absolutely there is no pleading or documents filed to show that either the 5^th  Opposite Party who is the banker of the Complainant or any other superior authority of the 5^th Opposite Party had sent any other communication to the Complainant to comply KYC norms. In Ex.B2 as stated by the Opposite Party the message are type written. It is not safe to accept such documents without supporting any other documents. Further lastly SMSs sent on 20.05.2013. The disconnection was given 30.09.2010 in between this four months period the Opposite Parties should have given a written communication to the Complainant by way of e-mail or letter requiring the Complainant to comply the KYC norms. In spite of such long duration is available before blocking of the Complainant account, it is held that the Opposite Parties have not properly communicated the Complainant about banking account.

          9. The Complainant specifically contended that even as per RBI  directs to close an account due notice should be given to the customer. Admittedly the Opposite Parties have not given any written notice to the Complainant for blocking  his account. In Ex,B1 RBI circular dated 01.07.2013 at page 9 reads as follows:

     For example, decision by a bank to close an account should be taken at a reasonable high level after giving due notice to the customer explaining the reasons for such a decision.

Even as per the above statement to close a bank account a decision should be taken at a reasonable high level after giving due notice to the customer pending a reasons for such a decision. The above statement clearly infer that it certainly require a written notice to the customers to close an account or block an account. Further as stated above on what high level authority the decision was given to block  the Complainant account was not stated by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, we decided that the Complainant account for using Inter Banking facility had been blocked without due proper notice to the Complainant as per the RBI circular is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 5.

          10. The Opposite Party would contended the Complainant submitted KYC particulars on 04.10.2013 and he was using net banking on 05.10.2013, 17.10.2013, 18.10.203, 21.10.2013. There is evidence in Ex.B3  at page 90 of Ex.B3 on 05.10.2013 the Complainant used net banking only after submitting KYC particulars on 04.10.2013. However, from 13.09.2013 on the day of internet banking facility was blocked till 04.10.2013 the Complainant was unable to use Internet Banking facility is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

11. The Opposite Parties specifically contended that the Complainant was having account with the 5^th Opposite Party and the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 have unnecessarily added as parties and harassed them. No doubt, the Complainant is having  bank account only with 5^th Opposite Party and  to restore the internet connection he has  contacted the Head Office for restoration. In such a case the Opposite Party 1 to 4 who are the Higher Authority to the 5^th Opposite Party are become necessary. Further the Complainant sent Ex.A1 letter dated 18.10.2013 to all the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 and further  he received Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 letters dated 21.10.2013 and 24.10.2013 Sai Vamsikrishnan customers Service Manager and in Ex.A3 also he had stated that KYC is up dated and the Internet Banking is activated  and apologize for the inconvenience caused to the Complainant. The above circumstances clearly establishes that and the 5^th Opposite Party never replied anything to the Complainant necessity the Complainant to sent correspondence to the other Opposite Parties and after that only his Net Banking was restored. Therefore in such circumstances the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 also been added are necessary parties. Therefore, for the forgoing reasons we hold that the Opposite Parties  without issuing prior notice to the Complainant  and disconnected  the internet banking facility is deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 5 have committed deficiency in service.  The 6^th Opposite Party is an authority and not rendered any service to the Complainant and  therefore he cannot be fastened with any liability of deficiency in service.

 

12. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant did not use the Internet Connection with Internet Banking transactions from 30.09.2013 to 04.10.2013 for 5 days and during that period  he has suffered for transactions from his Saving Account is accepted and for the same, it would be appropriate to order a sum of Rs.50,000/- compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony to the Complainant and also  to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the 6^th Opposite Party is liable to be dismissed, as he has not committed any deficiency in service.

In the result the Complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Parties 1 to  5 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand   only) towards compensation for mental agony, besides a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only)  towards litigation expenses.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. In respect of the 6^th Opposite Party the Complaint is dismissed with no costs.         

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 30^th  day of March 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 18.10.2013		Letter from the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A2 dated 21.10.2013		E-mail from Vamshi Krishna, Customer service Manager to the Complainant’s e-mail
Ex.A3 dated 24.10.2013		E-mail from Vamshi Krishna, Customer service Manager to the Complainant’s e-mail
Ex.A4 dated 25.10.2013		Letter from the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5 dated 31.10.2013		Reply from Meenakshi Saliyan, Senior Management Desk, to the Complainant
Ex.A6 dated 31.10.2013		Letter from the 6th Opposite Party to the Complainant
Ex.A7 dated 13.11.2013		Letter from the Complainant to the 4th Opposite Party
Ex.A8 dated 15.11.2013		E-mail from Prachi Neriekar, Manager, senior Management Desh to the Complainant’s e-mail
Ex.A9 dated 21.11.2013		E-mail from Prachi Neriekar, Manager, Senior Management Desk to the Complainant’s e-mail
Ex.A10 dated 22.11.2013		Letter from the Complainant to the 4th Opposite Party
Ex.A11 dated 26.11.2013		E-mail from Shaikh Gani, Senior Manager to the Complainant’s e-mail
Ex.A12 dated 03.01.2014		Letter from the 6th Opposite Party to the Complainant along with the cover
Ex.A13 dated 13.01.2014		Letter from the Complainant to the 6th Opposite Party
Ex.A14 dated 20.01.2014		Letter from the Complainant to the 6th Opposite Party

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 01.07.2013                           Circular dated 01.07.2013 by Reserve Bank

                                                            of India

 

Ex.B2 dated  NIL                            SMS details sent to the Registered Mobile

                                                            Number of the Complainant                             

 

Ex.B3 dated NIL                             Statement of Accounts from 01.07.2013 to 

                                                           31.12.2013

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT