CC Nos.1243 to 1247/2015

Filed on:01.07.2015

Disposed on:28.12.2016.

BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICTCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,BANGALORE – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 28^thDAY OF DECEMBER 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NOs.1243/2015 to 1247/2015

PRESENT:

Sri. H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, B.Sc., LL.B.

                    PRESIDENT

                   Smt. L.MAMATHA, B.A., (Law), LL.B.

                   MEMBER

V/S

                   COMMON ORDER

BY SRI.H.S.RAMAKRISHNA, PRESIDENT

1.      These complaints filed by the different Complainants against the same Opposite Partiesi.e., M/s Karnataka Bank Limited and another and the relief claimed in these complaints are similar.  Hence, in order to avoid repetition of work and conflict of order, the common order has been passed in these cases.

2. The Complainants in Complaint Nos.1243/2015 to 1247/2015 have filed these Complaints against the Opposite Parties praying to pass an order directing the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- & Rs.1,80,000/-respectively and other reliefs.

3.The brief facts of the complaints can be stated as under:

The complainant in CC.No.1243/2015, the Complainant Prajwal Gopinath opened a Savings Bank Account No.09725001086214001 for the specific purpose of long term deposits with Opposite Party No.1.  Account was opened on 29.12.2011.  The Opposite Party No.1 was given more than Rs.12,00,000/- deposit soon after opening of the account and increased to Rs.18,00,000/- representing most of earnings and holdings of the young Complainant.   Tax deduction at source was not done for the year ending 31.03.2013 on the deposits despite being the duty of Opposite Party No.1 and specific email and telephone enquires yielded no satisfactory response from Opposite Party No.1 or 2.  The typical response from Opposite Party No.1 stating that this was an error and would be rectified.  After few days, the Opposite Party No.1 asserts that 15G form has been filed and hence TDS was not deducted.  When the hard copy of signed form is demanded Bank did not produce.  The reason is simple when the Complainant was not having taxable income, 15G were taken by the Bank and in multiple copies.  Hence the Bank could have managed to insert whatever was needed to show as 15G was received during the year.  If they produce 15G forms from the year 2011-12-13, then the Complainant would consider believing Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.1 did not furnish the evidence stating verbally that can go to court.  Due to this lapse and deficiency of service, the Complainant had to arrange on 21.06.2013 for Rs.10,160/-.  That was an additional burden due to the non-feasance or mal-feasance of Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  Issue of non-deduction of TDS was escalated to Appellate Authority of RBI who ordered that any penalty will be paid by the Bank.  However, by arranging Rs.10,160/- , the Complainant avoided the penalty but at great inconvenience.   Further all deposits were ripe for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. and due to the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits caused loss of 0.25% p.a. per each year for five years, on deposit of Rs.18,00,000/-plus accrued interest from deposit 12.06.2011 till 05.02.2014 which is nearly Rs.13,00,000/-.  That would have been Rs.28,750/- for deposit amount of Rs.23,00,000/- in 05.02.2014.  Request for increase of deposit rate is reproduced.  Thus financial loss by way of this burden was imposed on the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 & No.2 by their adamant and malafide orders issued by Opposite Party No.1 terminating Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting to pay of interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  The Opposite Party No.1 was ready only for waiver of penalty which is meaningless under the circumstances.  Till date two major deposits Rs.10,00,000/- are with the Bank at old rate of 9.25%.  Notice alleged that issues raised were malicious in nature and detrimental to the interests of the Bank.  This is usage of basal power Opposite Party No.1 & 2.   After receiving the notice of termination of Banking services.  Consolidated notice of inconvenience caused by termination of Banking services was served from 08.02.2014, 14.02.2014 etc from email.  The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 did not relent or provide any resolution at all for raised issues.  This arbitrary actions of Opposite Party No.1 has caused financial loss of differential rate of interest of 0.25% p.a. interest on Rs.23,00,000/- for at least 5 years period for nearly Rs.28,750/-plus and also loss of enjoyment of normal Banking service and the charge of malice etc. has deeply wounded the feelings and on the other hand, the acts of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is malafide in nature and causing financial distress and emotional torture in the conservative society. 

4. The complainants in CC.No.1244/2015, the Complainants have opened a Savings Bank Account No.0972500301002701  and later NROSB No.0972500200011901  in August 2007 for specific purpose of long term deposits with Opposite Party No.1.  All deposits were ready for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. and due to the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits caused loss of 0.25% per each year for 10 years, on deposit of Rs.34.06 lakhs plus accrued interest from deposit 12.06.2011 till 05.02.2014 which is nearly Rs.47,35,000/-.  That would have been Rs.1,18,383/- in 05.February 2014.  In addition another Rs.10,00,000/- deposit would be Rs.11,00,000/- after one year and ripe for renewal at 9.5% and the loss on this deposit for 10 years is Rs.27,312/-.  Total interest loss is Rs.1,45,695/-.  Request for increase of deposit rate is reproduced.  The Opposite Party No.1 issued abrupt notice of termination of Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting payment of interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  The Opposite Party No.1 was ready only for waiver of penalty which is meaningless under the circumstances.  Notice alleged that the issues raised were malicious in nature and detrimental to the interests of the Bank.  These Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to act in responsible manner to no avail.  The Bank closed the operative NRESB and NROSB accounts on 10.04.2013 and notified that term deposits will not be renewed on maturity but retained the deposits.  All deposits are maintained with the Opposite Party No.1 till maturity and the conservative loss is Rs.1,45,695/-.  After receiving the notice of termination of Banking services.  Consolidated notice of inconvenience caused by termination of Banking services was served on from 08.02.2014, 14.02.2014 etc from email.  The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 did not relent or provide any resolution at all for raised issues.  This arbitrary actions of Opposite Party No.1 has caused financial loss of differential rate of interest of 0.25% p.a. interest as cited above and also loss of enjoyment of normal Banking service and the charge of malice etc. has deeply wounded the feelings and on the other hand, the acts of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is malafide in nature and causing financial distress and emotional torture in the conservative society.  As the Complainant was NRI and sought time till July 2014 to sort out the issues and also find alternative arrangements and this was not acceded by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.   All this has caused mental distress, financial disarray, erosion of confidence in self and Banking institutions and their integrity and customer service.  

5. The complainant in CC.No.1245/2015, the Complainant Smt.IndiraGopinath three term deposits in her individual name with a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. Also have three deposits jointly with her mother Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma.  Joint deposits were changed into single deposit of her mother and Indira Gopinath was kept as nominee by the Opposite Party No.1 for Bank’s needs.  The Complainant’s mother Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma deceased on 08.02.2013 and visited the branch as she had flown down to see ailing mother and stayed back to complete the ceremonies after her mother’s death.  The Opposite Party No.1 took signatures on several papers and sent the Complainant back stating that the deposits are transferred to Complainant’s name.  But deposit receipts were not provided at all until the persistent enquiry through emails from Doha, State of Qatar.  After repeated emails Opposite Party No.1 sent the scanned copies of deposits on 26.04.2014 that is nearly three months after getting signatures on several papers from the Complainant.  When demanded to know why the rate of interest was reduced from 10 and 10.5% to 9%, there was no satisfactory response from Opposite Party No.1 and 2.  The Chief Mangers were emotionally blackmailing the Complainant stating that staff who have done this wrong thing will pay the difference.  Instead of this Bank should have accepted the fault officially and paid the difference with apology letter.  The Complainant Smt.IndiraGopinath with her mother for Abhyudaya Cash Certificate:

Deposits inherited and interest reduced by Ktk-from 08.02.2013 without conscious consent and not giving even scanned deposit receipts for next 3 months. 

6. Sri.Gopinath husband of Complainant personally visited Karnataka Bank in June 2013, with Complainant’s signed request for internet Banking.   The Opposite Party agreed to process the same.  But there was no satisfactory resolution of this request at all.  After these exchanges, the Opposite Party No.1 issued abrupt notice of termination of Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting to pay interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  Till date all three NRE deposits are with the Bank.  Notice alleged that issues raised were malicious in nature and detrimental to the interests of the Bank.  These were rebutted and sought Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to act in responsible manner to no avail.  The Opposite Party No.1 closed all operative accounts on 10.03.2014 after the notice of 05.02.2014.  Only those three inherited deposits in the table 2 above for which interest rates were reduced were transferred out of the Bank on 24.03.2014, after the notice of termination of Banking services.  Had the deposits of reduced rates were allowed to be renewed on 08.02.2014 at 9.5%, the differential amount at 0.5% would be more than Rs.8,000/- for ten years and considering her NRE deposits deposited for 10 years, the incremental interest would be more than Rs.5,000/- after 0.25% increase.  Loss due to reduced rate from 10 and 10.5% amounts to nearly Rs.14,000/.  Total loss excluding the interest is Rs.27,000/-.  Consolidated notice of inconvenience caused by Opposite Party No.1 was served on 08.02.2014, 14.02.2014 from email.  The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 did not relent or provide any resolution at all for two issues.  Notice is reproduced.  The same notice include pleading for enhancing the rate of interest on deposits to 9.5% from 08.02.2014. This caused loss of enjoyment of normal Banking service and the charge of malice has deeply wounded the feelings and on the other hand, the acts of Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is malafide in nature and causing financial distress and emotional stress of Bank’s wrong action in the conservative society.  As the Complainant was NRI and sought time till July 2014 to sort out the issues and also find alternative arrangements and this was not acceded by the Opposite Party.  All this has caused mental distress, financial disarray, erosion of confidence in self and Banking institutions and their integrity and customer service.  All NRE terms deposits of Rs.7,00,000/- are still with the Bank till the year 2022 and the Complainant cannot take advantage of possible increase of interest rate in nature in view of malafide intention of the Opposite Party No.1 & 2. 

7. The complainant in CC.No.1246/2015, the Complainant has opened a NRE Savings Bank Account in the name and style of M/s Gopinath HUF No.0972500301004901 for specific purpose of long term deposits with direct transfer from Doha, State of Qatar with Opposite Party No.1.  Account was opened in 16.01.2013 with nil balance.  Such was the enthusiasm and significance of Opposite Party No.1 in getting these NRI deposits, account was opened nearly 8 days prior to the receipt of funds.  While opening the account, Complainant signed various HUF declarations and account opening booklet which also required declaration for obtaining internet Banking facility for the HUF.  Net Banking was not provided at all and there was no satisfactory response from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in spite of providing required signatures in the account opening form and further written application of the karta in June 2013.  Further Sri.Gopinath Karta of Gopinath HUF personally visited Karnataka Bank in June 2013, with Complainant’s one more signed request for internet Banking.  The Opposite Party No.1 agreed to process the same.  But there was no satisfactory resolution of this request at all. Other than this there was one more issue at the Bank for Gopinath HUF account.  In the beginning of 2014 rates of interest increased to 9.5% from 9%, and after completion of one year, HUF was entitled to pre-close and redeposit of these deposits at 9.5% interest.  The Opposite Party No.1 issued abrupt notice of termination of Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting payment of interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  The Opposite Party No.1 was ready only for waiver of penalty which is meaningless under the circumstances.  Till date all three NRE deposits are with the Bank.  Notice alleged that the issues raised were malicious in nature and detrimental to the interests of the Bank.  These Opposite Party No.1 & 2 to act in responsible manner to no avail.  The Bank closed the operative NRESB and NROSB accounts on 10.04.2013 and notified that term deposits will not be renewed on maturity but retained the deposits.  During 2014 vacation visit Complainant closed these deposits for alternate arrangement resulted in getting 9.1% interest rate against 9.5% that was legally available at Karnataka Bank.  Differential loss for Rs.33,00,000/-  is 0.4% of Rs.13,200/- for one year and for ten years which is the tenure used by the Complainant, Rs.1,32,000/- net loss.  After receiving the notice of termination of Banking services.  Consolidated notice of inconvenience caused by termination of Banking services was served on from 08.02.2014, 14.02.2014 from email.  The Opposite Party N.1 & 2 did not relent or provide any resolution at all for two issues.  This arbitrary actions of Opposite Party No.1 has caused financial loss of differential rate of interest of 0.5% p.a. interest on Rs.33,00,000/- for at least 5 years period of RS.13,200/- and also loss of enjoyment of normal Banking service and the charge of malice etc. has deeply wounded the feelings and on the other hand, the acts of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is malafide in nature and causing financial distress and emotional torture in the conservative society. As the Complainant was NRI and sought time till July 2014 to sort out the issues and also find alternative arrangements and this was not acceded to by the Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  All this has caused mental distress, financial disarray, erosion of confidence in self and Banking institutions and their integrity and customer service.  

8. The complainant in CC.No.1247/2015, the Complainant Pranav Gopinath has opened a Savings Bank Account No.0972500108819801 on 27.12.2011 for specific purpose of long term deposits with Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.1was given more than Rs.15,00,000/- deposit representing most of earnings and holdings of the young, student at that time Complainant.  Further all deposits were ripe for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. when interest rates increased in 2014 and by the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits Opposite Party No.1 caused loss of 0.25% p.a. per each year for five years, on deposit of Rs.15,00,000/-plus accrued interest from deposit 12.06.2011 till 05.02.2014 when reinvestible amount was nearly Rs.17,00,000/-.  The loss is Rs.21,690/- for deposit amount of Rs.17,00,000/- from 05 February 2014.  Request for increased deposit rate was given.  Sri.Gopinath father of Complainant personally visited Karnataka Bank in June 2013, with Complainant’s one more signed request for internet Banking.  The Opposite Party No.1 agreed to process the same.  But there was no satisfactory resolution of this request at all. Continuous escalation with Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 and Head office resulted in getting potentially dangerous internet kit in 08.11.2013 that is 5 months after visiting Opposite Party No.1 at his branch. The Complainant was at Doha, State of Qatar when the internet kit was delivered by mail and found serious faults. Immediately he brought it to the notice of his father and requested to register the control weaknesses of the Bank in the sending internet kit.  The internet kit contained both Customer identification Data.  Password for the CID and password for doing transactions.  This could have allowed any person opening the internet kit to take over the account-yes-it is unwarranted risk for customers.  And Bank was requested to either remove CID and or both password in one envelope.  There was no response till date.  All these incidents are bonafide escalations and helping Opposite Party No.1 to act as one responsible Bank.  Thus financial loss imposed on the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 & 2 by their adamant and malafide orders terminating Banking services on 05.02.2014 and auctioned on 10.03.2014 without accepting to pay of interest for full contracted period of term deposits has to be remedied.  The Opposite Party No.1 was ready only for waiver of penalty which is meaningless under the circumstances.  Notice alleged that issues raised were malicious in nature and detrimental to the interests of the Bank.  This is usage of basal power Opposite Party No.1 & 2 carried as a Bank upon small depositors.  After receiving the notice of termination of Banking services. Consolidated notice of inconvenience caused by termination of Banking services was served on from 08.02.2014, 14.02.2014 etc from email.  The Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 did not relent or provide any resolution at all for raised issues.  This arbitrary actions of Opposite Party No.1 has caused financial loss of differential rate of interest of 0.25% p.a. interest on Rs.17,00,000/- for at least 5 years period for nearly Rs.21,690/-plus and also loss of enjoyment of normal Banking service and the charge of malice etc. has deeply wounded the feelings and on the other hand, the acts of Opposite Party No.1 & 2 is malafide in nature and causing financial distress and emotional torture in the conservative society.  Hence, these complaints. 

9.      In response to the notice, the opposite party Nos.1 put their appearance through their counsel and filed their version.  In the version pleaded that the complaints are not maintainable, misconceived.  The complaints are barred by time. The Complainant in CC.No.1243/2015 opened a S.B.Account with the Opposite Party No.1 on 29.12.2011.  He had five deposits as per F.D.Nos.09715002 60270301,0971500260277001,0971500260273301,0971500260270201 and 0971500260272601.  The deposits are for a period of 5 years with the maturity date as “12.02.2016 and 14.02.2016” and the rate of interest agreed there under was “9.25% p.a.”. The said F.Ds were re-investment deposits with compounding of interest once in a quarter.  Father, mother and brother of the Complainant had also deposits with the Opposite Party-Bank.  The father of the Complainant felt that he has given huge deposits to the Bank and that the Bank should render certain services to him which is totally unconnected with the Banking services.  On this behalf, the Complainant’s father, towards the end of April 2013, phoned up the then Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and stated that he proposes to visit Bengaluru in June 2013 and wishes to Travel in India for a week, that he wanted a vehicle to be arranged by the Bank at its cost and expense for his said travel.  The then Manager of Opposite Party No.1 was not agreeable to this and upon insistence by the Complainant’s father to approach higher authorities and arrange for the vehicle, the then Bank Manager of Opposite Party No.1 hesitantly contacted his Regional Office at Bengaluru and conveyed the demand of the Complainant’s father to the head of Regional Office. 

10. The Regional Office was not agreeable to this and hence the Regional Office sent an E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 to the Complainant’s father refusing to accede to his request.  This E-Mail appears to have charge the Complainant’s father and he filed a complaint in the name of the Complainant before the Banking Ombudsman alleging deficiency in service by Opposite Party Bank by not making TDS/furnishing 15 G Form on the interest amount paid.  The Bank in reply to the said complaint, filed objections and produced a copy of the Form No.15G given the Complainant.  The Opposite Party also demonstrated as to how that complaint was not maintainable.  The Banking Ombudsman considering the said complaint and the reply of the Opposite Party-Bank, passed an order dt.16.09.2013 rejecting this complaint.  Against this rejection, the Complainant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, the Deputy Governor, R.B.I, Customers Service Department.   The said Deputy Governor after hearing passed an order dt.06.12.2013 with an observation that in the event of the Complainant is required to pay any penalty, for shortfall in payment of Advance Tax/Self assessments the same has to be reimbursed by the Bank.  The Complainant admits that no penalty was levied and he paid the Tax on time.  In the circumstances, question of the Complainant making a fuss about the matter once again and filing the present complaint before this Forum did not arise.  The Complainant’s father apart from getting the above complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman, he also filed a Complaint before the Banking Ombudsman alleging non-furnishing of Internet facility.   This complaint also the appeal which was also demised.  The Complainant’s father got filed Complaint on behalf of his Wife-Smt.Indira Gopinath and son Mr.Pranav before the Banking Ombudsman alleging certain deficiency by the Opposite Party-Bank.  These complaints were dismissed against which the appeals were also been disposed-off.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, his father, mother and brother, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant, his father, mother and brother.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainant.   The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of their maturity.  Thereby the Bank agreed to perform its contract till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close his S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the Complainant approached the Bank and gave a letter dt.15.05.2014 requesting the Bank to foreclose is, to close the FDs., even before their maturity date and to transfer the same to Axis Bank.  The Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to the said request, transferred a total sum of Rs.10,96,966/- by way of RTGS, to Axis Bank, Bengaluru.  The Opposite Party Bank did not deduct any amount or charge for foreclosure of said FDs., though the contracted period was 5 years from the date of said FDs. The Opposite Party-Bank charges penalty for foreclosure of FDs before the date of their maturity.  While seeking foreclosure of said Five Fixed/Term Deposits and transferring the amounts to Axis Bank, the Complainant said anything.  He has now come up with the plea that he suffered loss at 0.25% on account of such transfer. The said allegation of loss at 0.25% is only an afterthought now made with a view to harass the Opposite Parties and it is also imaginary and hypothetical.  The steps taken by the Bank are all correct and legal.   No exception can be taken to the same.  The Complainant’s version relating to T.D.S/Form No.15G is false to his own knowledge.   It may be noticed that the rate of interest agreed under the said Term deposits is 9.25% and that too for a period of 5 years.  The Complainant did not keep the Deposits till the end of the agreed period but closed prematurely.  Thus the allegations of deficiency in service made by the Complainant is totally false. 

11. The Complainants in CC.No.1244/2014 are the customers of Opposite Party No.1 Bank. They did not had any joint “Deposits” with Opposite Party-Bank.  They had two S.B.Accounts.  At the request, the said S.B.Accounts were closed and the amount at credit were transferred to their other Banks i.e., State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore.  The Complainants do not hold any joint account with the Bank as on the date of complaint.  The Complainants have made certain other deposits in their personal names and also in the name of their two sons, namely, Pranav Gopinath and Prajwal Gopinath. 

12. The Complainant in CC.No.1245/2015, Smt.Bhagya Lakshmamma, had three Deposits in her name with the Opposite Party Bank the Complainant was the nominee for the said Deposits.  The said deposits were to mature for payment on 02.02.2017, 02.02.2017 and 28.10.2013.  After the death of Complainant’s mother, the Complainant approached the Bank and closed the said three Fixed Deposits and thereafter she obtained three fresh Term Deposits in her name, on 08.02.2013.  The Complainant’s husband Sri.Gopinath was the nominee for the said fresh three deposits.  The rate of interest agreed under the three F.Ds, which stood in the name of Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma was 10%, 10% and 10.25% P.A.  Upon closure of the said F.Ds and obtaining of fresh three deposits by the Complainant, on 08.02.2013, the interest rate prevailing was 9% p.a. and accordingly the said rate of interest was agreed to be given by the Bank under the said fresh FDRs.  The Complainant accepted the same.  The Opposite Party-Bank fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, her husband and sons, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant, her husband and their sons.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014, to the Complainant expressing their inability to extend Banking Services.  From the said letter, the Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of their maturity. Thereby the Bank agreed to perform its contract till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close her S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  As per request, the Bank to foreclose the said three FDs and transfer the same to her account with State Bank Travancore,

13. The Complainant in CC.No.1246/2014 is a HUF.  Its Kartha is one Mr.Gopinath.  He opened S.B.Account with the Opposite Party No.1 in the name of his HUF, on 16.01.2013.  On 24.01.2013, he sent a payment of Rs.30,00,000/- with a request to transfer the said sum of Rs.30,00,000/- to three FDs of Rs.10,00,000/- each.  The Opposite Party No.1 accordingly transferred the said Rs.30,00,000/- to three NRE ACCs of Rs.10,00,000/- each as per F.D.Nos.0971505100121101, 0971505100121201 and 0971505100121301 for a period of 5 years with the maturity date as 24.01.2018 and the rate of interest agreed was 9% p.a.  The said FDs were re-investment deposits with compounding of interest once in a quarter.  The Kartha of the Complainant HUF used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for quest services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.1 and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2 complaining against the officials of the Opposite Party-Bank.  The Opposite Party-Bank fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, his wife and sons, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant and accordingly it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014, its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of maturity.  Thereby the Bank agreed to perform its contract till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close his S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements.  At no point of time, while seeking foreclosure of said three Fixed/Term Deposits and transferring the amounts to Andhra Bank. 

14. The Complainant in CC.No.1247/2015, the Complainant opened hisS.B.Account with Opposite Party NO.1 on 27.12.2011.  He held four deposits value of about Rs.15,00,000/-.  The said deposits were for a period of 2 years and 5 years with the maturity date as “24.08.2014, 13.08.2014, 12.02.2016 and 10.09.2017” and the rate of interest agreed there under was “9.25% P.A. and 9.50%.  The said FDs were re-investment deposits with compounding of interest once in a quarter.  At no point of time while seeking foreclosure of said Four Fixed/Term Deposits and transferring the amounts to SBT, the Complainant said anything.  He has now come up with the plea that he suffered loss at 0.25% on account of such transfer.  Hence, prays to dismiss these complaints.

15.   The Complainants have filed their affidavits by way of evidence and closed their side.  The Opposite Party-1, the affidavit of one Sri.Narayana Bhat U, working as Chief Manager of Karntaaka Bank Limited has been filed. Heard the arguments of both parties.

16.    Now the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complainants have proved the alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties?
2. If so, to what relief the Complainants are entitled?

17.   Our findings on the above points are:-

                POINT (1):-Negative

                POINT (2):-As per the final Order

REASONS

18.   POINT NO. 1:-    In CC.No.1243/2015 alleges that he opened a Savings Bank Account bearing No.09725001086214001 for the specific purpose of long term deposits with Opposite Party No.1 and gave more than Rs.12,00,000/- deposit soon after opening of the account and increased to Rs.18,00,000/-.   Tax deduction at source was not done for the year ending 31.03.2013 on the deposits despite being the duty of Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 in their version had not denied or disputed that the Complainant is an Account Holder and having deposits.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant one Sri.Prajwal Gopinath, in his sworn testimony, he had reiterated the same and this evidence of the Complainant has not been denied or disputed by the Opposite Party No.1 Bank.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 Bank themselves produced the Abhyudhaya Cash Certificates which are in the name of the Complainant Sri.Prajwal Gopinath bearing F.D.Nos.0971500 260270301, 09715002 60277001, 0971500260273301, 0971500260270201 and 0971500260272601.  From this evidence, it is very clear that the Complainant is having five deposits with Opposite Party No.1 Bank. In the allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.1 Bank has not deducted the Tax at source for the year ending 31.03.2013 on the deposits being the duty of the Opposite Party No.1 and specific email and telephone enquires yielded no satisfactory response.  After few days, the Opposite Party No.1 asserts that 15G form has been filed and hence TDS was not deducted.  When the hard copy of signed form is demanded Bank did not produce.  The reason is simple when the Complainant was not having taxable income, 15G were taken by the Bank and in multiple copies.  Hence the Bank could have managed to insert whatever was needed to show as 15G was received during the year.  If they produce 15G forms from the year 2011-12-13.  Due to this lapse and deficiency of service, the Complainant had to arrange on 21.06.2013 for Rs.10,160/-.  That was an additional burden due to the non-feasance or mal-feasance of Opposite Party No.1 & 2.  Issue of non-deduction of TDS was escalated to Appellate Authority of RBI who ordered that any penalty will be paid by the Bank.  However, by arranging Rs.10,160/-, the Complainant avoided the penalty but at great inconvenience.   To substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he had reiterated the same and produced email send by the Bank to the Gopinath father of the Complainant informing that TDS not been deducted from the deposits of the Complainant Prajwal Gopinath 2012-13 a total interest of Rs.1,82,360/- TDS Amount to be deducted Rs.18,236/- and requested to provide the said amount.  If not the said amount will be remit from the SB Account of the Complainant.  Thereby, even this document itself, it is very clear that it falsifies contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party No.1 has not deducted the TDS at source and also further produced the letter addressed by the Deputy General Manager, V.Venugopal Rao to the Complainant about the Appeal against BO, Bangalore in complaint No.201314002000371 against Karnataka Bank Limited.  By this letter, the Deputy General Manager informed that the Appellate Authority has carefully considered the submissions made by the Complainant in the Appeal and the Complainant if required to pay any penalty for the short fall in payment of advance tax, the same will be reimbursed by the Bank.  Except this, the Complainant had not produced any evidence to show that the Complainant paid penalty with regard to TDS, thereby, the said amount will be reimbursed by the Opposite Party-Bank.  As per the request made by the Opposite Party-Bank, the Complainant himself made arrangements and paid the TDS amount of Rs.10,160/-.

19. It is the case of the Complainant that all deposits were ripe for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. and due to the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits caused loss of 0.25% p.a per each year for five years, on deposit of Rs.18,00,000/- plus accrued interest from deposit 12.06.2011 till 05.02.2014 which is nearly 23 lakhs.  That would have been Rs.28,750/- Thus financial loss by way of this burden was imposed on the Complainant by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 by their adamant and malafide orders issued by Opposite Party No.1 terminating Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting to pay of interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  This arbitrary actions of Opposite Party No.1 has caused financial loss of differential rate of interest of 0.25% p.a. interest on Rs.23,00,000/- for at least 5 year period for nearly Rs.28,750/-.  To substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he had reiterated the same and produced the mail correspondences made by Complainant and his family members with the Opposite Party No.1 request of increase rate of interest is reproduced and inconvenience caused to them and further mail correspondence, it is very clearly informing that the closure of the Banking service, they have sustained loss and also the interest rate will be reduced. 

20. The complainants in CC.No.1244/2015, it is the case of the Complainants alleges that they have opened a NRE Savings Bank Account with Opposite Party No.1 Bank direct transfer from Doha, State of Qatar with Opposite Party No.1.  All deposits were ready for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. and due to the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits caused loss of 0.25% per each year for 10 years, on deposit of Rs.34.06 lakhs plus accrued interest from deposit 12.06.2011 till 05.02.2014 which is nearly 47.35 lakhs.  That the Opposite Party in their version taken a defence that they did not had any Joint “Deposits” with Opposite Party-Bank.  On the other hand, they had agreed two S.B.Accounts.  At their request the said S.B.Accounts were closed and the amount at credit were transferred to their other Banks i.e., State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore. It is on the burden of the Complainants.  In order to establish the same, the Complainants Sri.Gopinath and Smt.Indira Gopinath reiterated the same.  Except the mail correspondences, the Complainants have not placed any evidence to show that the Complainant’s have term Deposits with Opposite Party No.1 Bank. On the other hand, the Opposite Party No.1 Bank had clearly admitted that the Complainant’s having S.B.Accounts in their name and produced the mail correspondence with the Opposite Party No.1-Bank.  The Complainants in their mail dt.24.02.2014 requesting the Opposite Party No.1-Bank to increase the rate of interest deposits at 9.5%.  Except this, the Complainants have not produced any evidence to show that the Complainants are entitled for interest at the rate of 9.5% and thereby as cause of loss of interest 10.25% and overall as a result the Complainants sustained loss of interest Rs.1,45,695/-. 

21. The complainant in CC.No.1245/2015, Smt.Indira Gopinath alleges that she had three term deposits in her individual name with a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- also has three deposits jointly with her mother Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma.  Joint deposits were changed into single deposit of her mother and Indira Gopinath was kept as nominee.  The Complainant’s mother Smt.Bhagyalakshmamma deceased on 08.02.2013 upon which the Complainant sought change of ownership of three deposits on 08.02.2013.  The Opposite Party-Bank took signatures on several papers and sent to the Complainant back stating that the deposits are transferred to Complainant’s name. But deposit receipts were not provided at all until the persistent enquiry through emails form Doha, State of Qatar. After repeated emails Opposite Party No.1 sent the scanned copies of deposits on 26.04.2014 that is nearly three months after getting signatures on several papers from the Complainant.  When demanded to know why the rate of interest was reduced from 10 and 10.5% to 9%, there was no satisfactory response.  To substantiate this, the Complainant in her sworn testimony, reiterated the same and produced mail correspondence.  Except this, the Complainant has not placed any evidence.  To substantiate her contention, at the rate of interest was reduced from 10 and 10.5% to 9%, and also except interested version of the Complainant that there is a total loss of Rs.27,000/-.  As a result of the reduced rate of interest also the Complainant has not placed any substantial evidence.  No doubt, the Opposite Party in their version have not denied that the Complainant have three deposits in her name.  Further to substantiate by the FD receipts which are in the name of Smt. Indira Gopinath bearing No.0971500 259984301, 0971500 259984401 & 0971500 259161601.  By looking into the FD receipts, it reveals that the rate of interest is 9% only.  Absolutely, the Complainant have not placed any evidence to show that the rate of interest on the FD receipts is 10 and 10.5% p.a. and as a result of the deduction in the rate of interest the Complainant sustained a loss total sum of Rs.27,000/-. 

22. The complainant in CC.No.1246/2015, the Complainant alleges that he had opened a NRE Savings Bank Account in the name and style of M/s Gopinath HUF No.0972500301004901 for specific purpose of long term deposits with direct transfer from Doha, State of Qatar with Opposite Party No.1.  The Opposite Party No.1 in getting these NRI deposits, account was opened nearly 8 days prior to the receipt of funds.  While opening the account, Complainant signed various HUF declarations and account opening booklet.  Net Banking was not provided at all and there was no satisfactory response from Opposite Party No.1 & 2 in spite of providing required signatures in the account opening form and further written application of the karta in June 2013.  The Complainant Sri.Gopinath Karta of Gopinath HUF personally visited Karnataka Bank in June 2013, with Complainant’s one more signed request for internet Banking.  The Opposite Party No.1 agreed to process the same.  But there was no satisfactory resolution. The HUF account in the beginning of 2014 rates of interest increased to 9.5% from 9%, and after completion of one year, HUF was entitled to preclose and redeposit of these deposits at 9.5% interest.  But the Opposite Party No.1 refused the same and abrupt Banking services on 05.02.2014 without accepting payment of interest for full contracted period of term deposits.  As a result, the Complainant process loss of Rs.1,32,000/-.  The Opposite Party in their version have not denied that the Complainant Gopinath of Karta HUF opened a SB Account and send payment of Rs.30,00,000/- to three FDs of Rs.10,00,000/- each.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same.  This evidence of the Complainant is not denied or disputed by the Opposite Party.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party themselves produced the Abhyudhaya Cash Certificate NRE standing in the name of the Gopinath HUF No.0971505100121101.  By looking into this, the FD receipts rate of interest is only 9%.  

23. The Complainant in order to substantiate their contention, in the beginning of 2014 rate of interest increased to 9.5% from 9%, and after completion of one year.  To substantiate this, the Complainant except the interested version has not placed any evidence.  As a result of the deprivation of the interest the Complainants sustained loss of Rs.1,32,000/-.  The Complainant has not placed any evidence.  Except his interested version, the Complainant produced some mail correspondences, he had not produced any piece of evidence.  To substantiate his contention that the Opposite Party-Bank has failed to provide internet Banking facility to the Complainant.

24. The complainant in CC.No.1247/2015, the Complainant Pranav Gopinath alleges that opened a Savings Bank Account on 27.12.2011 and given more than Rs.15,00,000/- deposit.  All deposits were ripe for pre-closure and renewal with higher rate of interest at 9.5% p.a. when interest rates increased in 2014 and by the action of closure of operative account and non-renewal of deposits caused loss of 0.25% p.a. per each year for five years, on deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- The Complainant sustained total loss is Rs.21,690/-.  The Opposite Party in their version have not denied fact that the Complainant is having S.B.Account and 4 deposits value of Rs.15,00,000/.  Further to substantiate this, the Complainant in his sworn testimony, he reiterated the same. The evidence of the Complainant has not disputed by the Opposite Party-Bank.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party-Bank themselves produced the Abhyudhaya Cash Certificate which are in the name of the Complainant Pranav Gopinath. By looking into this receipt, it is clear that the rate of interest at 9.5% and also the maturity date is 24.08.2014 13.08.2014, 12.02.2016 and 10.09.2017. To substantiate this case, all deposits were right for pre-closure in the 2014 and nonrenewal of deposits by the Opposite Party No.1 sustained loss of 0.25% interest and thereby totally loss of Rs.21,690/-. Except the interested version of the Complainant, the Complainant has not placed any evidence.  On the other hand as stated earlier, only two deposits out of the 4, 3 maturing in the year 2014 i.e., FD sum of Rs.6,05,450/- and another FD receipts for sum of Rs.6,34,000/- other two receipts by maturing in the year 2017 and 2016 and also absolutely there is no evidence that the Complainant sustained loss of Rs.21,690/- if it is so the Complainant ought to have produced some documents.  But except the email correspondence the Complainant has not placed any evidence. 

25. The Opposite Party in their version denied this fact and it is their specific defence that the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for quest services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant’s father used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.l and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2.  The Complainant’s father apart from getting the above complaint filed before the Banking Ombudsman alleging non-furnishing of Internet facility.  This complaint has also the appeal therein were also dismissed. Further, the Complainant’s father got filed Complaint’s on behalf of his Wife and son.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, his father, mother and brother, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant and his father, mother and brother.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainant.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of their maturity, till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close his S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the Complainant filed his complaint.  The Complainant approached the Bank and gave a letter dt.15.05.2014 requesting the Bank to foreclose is, to close the FDs., even before their maturity and to transfer the same to Axis Bank.  The Opposite Party No.1, pursuant to the said request, transferred a total sum of Rs.19,96,966/- by way of RTGS, to Axis Bank and did not deduct any amount or charge penalty for foreclosure. To substantiate this defence, the Opposite Party No.1 Sri.Narayana Bhat U, in their sworn testimony, he reiterated the same and produced the mail correspondence by the Opposite Party-Bank with the Complainant’s father.  By looking into this mail, it is clear that the Complainant’s father Gopinath demanded for arranging the vehicle during his visit to Bengaluru the same was refused by the Bank and also the Head Office.  The Complainant’s father failed his attempt to get other facilities from the Bank due to this close the Complainant’s father through the Complainant and his family members initiates several proceedings including Banking Ombudsman and also Banking Authority.  Thus are also rejected by the Competent Authority and the Complainant by failing in his attempt to take the revenge against the Opposite Party now to harass the Opposite Party filed this false complaint.  On the other hand, to substantiate his contention that he sustained loss of Rs.28,750/- as alleged in the complaint.  The Opposite Party-Bank due to their illegal demands and alleged fed-up with their attitude of the Complainant, his father mother and brother.  Accordingly, the letter sent to the Complainant on 05.02.2014 informing the Complainant they are unable to meeting such demands of the Complainant which is detrimental to the interests of the Bank, while expressing inability to extend Banking service to the Complainant and constrained to close complainant’s account after 30 days from the date of this intimation and also the term deposits will not be renewed after the due date.  After giving this notice, the Complainant made a request letter dt.15.05.2014 requesting the Opposite Party-Bank to close his deposit account by paying the amount with interest to his S.B.Account, Axis Bank with No.911010042988382.  After receiving this letter, the Opposite Party-Bank through RTGS transferred a sum of Rs.10,96,966/- to the Complainant’s account of Axis Bank.  Thereby, it clearly goes to show that the Opposite Party-Bank has rendered proper service.  On the other hand, the Complainant fails to establish that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1. 

26. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party Bank is that, it is their specific defence that the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for Banking services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.l and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant and accordingly it sent two letters both dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainants.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits, after the date of maturity, till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Accounts are concerned, the Bank requested the Complainants to close their S.B.Accounts, after 30 days from the date of the said letters.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainants to make alternative arrangements in order that the Complainants are not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the 1^st Complainant along with his wife has filed his complaint.  As per letter dt.10.03.2014 the Opposite Party-Bank informed the Complainants to close the account and the closure proceeds were transferred to the accounts at SBM and SBT as per account details furnished by the Complainant No.0972500301002701 and 0972500200011901.  From this evidence, after due information to the Complainant giving sufficient time, Opposite Party Bank to close their account and the closure proceeds were transferred to other Bank at State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore, thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  On the other hand, the Complainants failed to prove the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.

27. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party Bank is that, it is their specific defence that the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for quest services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant’s father used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.l and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, her husband and sons, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant, her husband and their sons.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainant.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of their maturity, till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close her S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the Complainant filed her complaint.

28. Since, the Complainant’s husband demanding illegally to perform Banking services from the Opposite Party-Bank.  Since Bank refused the same due to this husband of the Complainant and her son filed a complaint before Ombudsman and also other authorities but the Complainant have not get any relief only to take revenge filed this complaint and due to this reason Bank issued notice to the Complainant on 05.02.2014 informing the Complainant not to renew after the date of their maturity and agreed to perform the contract till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close her S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  The Complainant requested the Bank to foreclose the said three FDs and transfer the same to her account with State Bank of Travancore.  At her request, the Opposite Party–Bank has transfer the amount to her S.B.Account of the State Bank of Travancore, thereby the Opposite Party Bank render proper and necessary service to the Complainant.  The Complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. 

29. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party Bank is that, it is their specific defence that the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for quest services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant’s father used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.l and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, his wife and sons, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainant.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of maturity, till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close his S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the Complainant filed his complaint.  The Complainant approached the Bank and gave a letter dt.24.05.2014 requesting the Bank to foreclose the said 3 term deposits and to transfer the same to Andhra Bank.  The Opposite Party No.1 pursuant to the said request, transferred a total sum of Rs.33,87,835/-, by way of RTGS.  This defence is supported by the evidence of Opposite Party and also produced the requesting letter for payment of the deposit dt.24.05.2014.  Under this letter, one Sri.Gopinath requested for premature payment of the deposits.  At his request, the Opposite Party Bank has transfer the amount of his S.B.Account of the Andhra Bank.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party-Bank render proper service to the Complainant.  Thereby, the Complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank. 

30. On the other hand, the defence of the Opposite Party Bank is that, it is their specific defence that the Complainant’s father used to send E-Mails demanding officials of the Opposite Party-Bank for quest services.  Apart from such E-Mails Complainant used to phone up Manager of Opposite Party No.l and demand other services also.  Upon refusing to provide such services, the Complainant used to send E-Mails calling the officials of the Opposite Party by names and sending E-Mails to Opposite Party No.2.  The Opposite Party-Bank being fed up with this conduct of the Complainant, his wife and sons, decided not to have any Banking transaction with the Complainant.  Accordingly, it sent the letter dt.05.02.2014 to the Complainant.  The Bank did not agree to renew the Term Deposits after the date of maturity, till the end of the agreed period.  In so far as the S.B.Account is concerned, the Bank requested the Complainant to close his S.B.Account, after 30 days from the date of the said letter.  Thus the Bank gave sufficient notice and time to the Complainant to make alternative arrangements so that the Complainant is not put to inconvenience.  Having failed in his attempts to tarnish the image of Opposite Party-Bank before Banking Ombudsman and the Appellate Authority, the Complainant filed his complaint.

31. In support of the defence of the Opposite Party-Bank have produced the document i.e., request letter for premature payment of the dt.16.05.2015 at the request of the Complainant himself the Opposite Party-Bank have transferred the said amount to the Complainant account to State Bank of Mysore and State Bank of Travancore.  Thereby, the Opposite Party-Bank render proper service due to illegal demand of the Complainant.  The Opposite Party-Bank fed up with the conduct of the Complainant and his father.  For that reason issued a notice to the Complainant on 05.02.2014. Under this letter, one Sri.Pranav Gopinath requested for premature payment of the deposits.  At his request, the Opposite Party Bank has transfer the amount of his S.B.Account of the State Bank of Travancore.  On the other hand, the Opposite Party-Bank render proper service to the Complainant.  Thereby, the Complainant fails to prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party-Bank.  Hence, we answer point Nos.2 in the Negative. 

32. POINT NO.2:-In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaints are dismissed. No costs.

Keep the copy of the order in Complaint No.1244/2015 to 1247/2015.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th day of December 2016)

         MEMBER                                       PRESIDENT         

LIST OF WITNESSES AND DOCUMENTS

Witness examined on behalf of the Complainants:

1. Sri.Prajwal Gopinath, Smt.Indira Gopinath and Sri.Gopinath, Sri.Gopinath HUF, Sri.Pranav Gopinath, who being the Complainants have filed their affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Complainants in ComplaintNo.1243 to 1247/2015

1. Mail correspondences.

         Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite Party in CC.1243 to 1247/2015:

1. Sri.Narayana Bhat U, who being the Opposite Party had filed his affidavit.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties in CC.1243/2015

1. Copy of the NRE ACC (FDR) dt.12.02.2011 for Rs.3,91,577/-
2. Copy of the NRE ACC (FDR) Dt.14.02.2011 Rs.1,79,976/-
3. Copy of the NRE ACC (FDR) Dt.14.02.2011 for Rs.1,85,577/-
4. Copy of the NRE ACC (FDR) Dt.12.02.2011 for Rs.2,18,984/-
5. Copy of the NRE ACC (FDR) Dt.12.02.2011 for Rs.3,25,151/-
6. E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 from Opposite Party Bank to the Kartha of the Complainant.
7. Reply of the Opposite Party Bank to the complaint before Banking Ombudsman
8. Order dt.16.09.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint. 
9. Form No.15G signed by Complainant for the year 2011-12

10. Form No.15G signed by Complainant for the year 2012-13
11. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of the Complainant herein.
12. E-mail Complainants from Complainant and his father
13. Order of the Ombudsman dt.16.09.2013 in the complaint filed by Complainant’s father
14. Order of the Appellate Authority in the Appeal filed by Complainant’s father.
15. Order of the Ombudsman dt.16.09.2013 in the complaint filed by Complainant’s mother.
16. Order of the Appellate Authority in the Appeal filed by Complainant’s mother
17. Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
18. Letter of the Complainant dt.15.05.2014 seeking foreclosure of the Deposits.
19. Bank’s letter dt.15.05.2014 regarding foreclosure and transfer of funds.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties in CC.1244/2015

1. E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 from p-Bank rejecting the request of Complainant No.1
2. Order of the Banking Ombudsman Dt.16.09.2013 rejecting the complaint filed by the Complainant No.1
3. Order of the Appellate Authority dt.06.12.2013 rejecting to the Appeal of the Complainant herein against the order of the Banking Ombudsman
4. Order of the Banking Ombudsman dt.16.09.2013 rejecting the complaint filed by Mr.Prajwal-son of the Complainants
5. Order of the Appellate Authority dt.06.12.2013 relating to the Appeal of Mr.Prajwal, son of the Complainants herein against the order of the Banking Ombudsman.
6. Order of the Banking Ombudsman Dt.17.09.2013 rejecting the complaint filed by the 2^nd Complainant
7. Order of the Appellate Authority dt.06.12.2013 relating to the Appeal of the 2^nd Complainant against the order of the Banking Ombudsman.
8. Order dt.16.09.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Pranav
9. Order of the Appellate Authority dt.06.12.2013 relating to the Appeal of Mr.Pranav

10. E-mail of the Complainants
11. Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 to 1^st Complainant regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
12. Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 to 2^nd Complainant regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
13. Bank’s letter dt.10.03.2014 regarding closure of the S.B.Accounts of the Complainants.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties in CC.1245/2015

1. Copy of the FDR dt.08.02.2013 for Rs.70,443/-
2. Copy of the FDR dt.08.02.2013 for Rs.97,315/-
3. Copy of the FDR dt.08.02.2013 for Rs.60,735/-
4. E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 from Opposite Party-Bank to the husband of the Complainant
5. Order dt.17.09.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of the Complainant.
6. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of the Complainant
7. Copy of the Order Banking Ombudsman on the complaint filed by the husband of the Complainant,
8. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of the husband of the Complainant
9. Order of the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Prajval Gopinath Son of the Complainant
10. Order dt.6.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Mr.Prajval Gopinath
11. Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Pranav Gopinath
12. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Mr.Pranav Gopinath
13. E-mail Complainants from Complainant to Bank
14. Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
15. Letter of the Complainant seeking foreclosure of the Deposits.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties in CC.1246/2015

1. Copy of the FDR dt.24.01.2013 for Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-.
2. E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 from Opposite Party-Bank to the Kartha of the Complainant.
3. Copy of the complaint
4. Reply of the Opposite Party-Bank to the complaint before Banking Ombudsman
5. Order dt.16.09.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman,
6. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department,
7. Order passed byte Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Smt.Indira Gopinath
8. Order dt.6.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Smt.Indira Gopinath
9. Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Prajwal
10. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Mr.Prajwal
11. Order passed byteh Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Pranav
12. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Mr.Pranav
13. E-mail Complainants from Complainant to Bank
14. Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
15. Letter of the Complainant dt.24.05.2014 seeking foreclosure of the Deposits.

List of documents filed by the Opposite Parties in CC.1247/2015

1. Copy of the FDR dt.24.08.2012 for Rs.7,92,051/-,
2. Copy of the FDR Dt.13.08.2012 for Rs.7,64,963/-
3. Copy of the FDR dt.12.02.2011 for Rs.1,63,922/-
4. Copy of the FDR Dt.10.09.2012 for Rs.2,06,372/-
5. E-Mail dt.15.05.2013 from Opposite Party-Bank to the Complainant.
6. Order dt.16.09.2013 passed by the Banking Ombudsman,
7. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department,
8. E-mail cos from co to Bank.
9. Order of the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Mr.Gopinath
10. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Mr.Gopinath
11. Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting the complaint of Smt.Indira Gopinath
12.  Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting the Appeal of Smt.Indira Gopinath
13. Order passed by the Banking Ombudsman, rejecting e complaint of Mr.Prajval Gopinath
14. Order dt.06.12.2013 passed by the Deputy Governor, RBI, Customers Department, rejecting he Appeal of Mr.Prajval Gopinath
15.  Bank’s letter dt.05.02.2014 regarding its inability to extend Banking services to the Complainant.
16. Letter of the Complainant seeking foreclosure of the Deposits.

MEMBER                                                  PRESIDENT