Delhi

East Delhi

CC/206/2013

PRADEEP KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

P.N.B. - Opp.Party(s)

17 Aug 2017

ORDER

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

     CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.         206/2013

                                                                                                Date of Institution                25/03/2013

                                                                                                Order Reserved on               17/08/2017

                                                                                                Date of Order                        22/08/2017

                                                                                                       

In matter of

Mr. Pradeep Kumar, adult   

R/o – IX/ 2847,  Gali No. 18

Kailash Nagar, Delhi 110031..………………....………..…………….Complainant

                                                                    

                                                                         Vs

Punjab National Bank

Branch Gandhi Nagar   

Gandhi Nagar Delhi 110031…………………………………………….Opponent

 

Corum             Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                   

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

 

This complaint has been filed u/s 12 of The Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against the alleged deficiency in service of OP/PNB, for clearing of his LIC cheque in non functional saving bank account in negligent way and claiming a sum of Rs 70,000/- as compensation for harassment.  

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                            

Complainant had his saving bank account vide no. 0161000100552818 with OP/PNB since many years. He had deposited certain documents for updating KYC as per RBI guidelines to OP. The complainant had issued three cheques to MCD vide no. 136241, 136242 and 136243 on 25/05/2011 which were returned by OP stating that his account was non operative since long. He again issued one cheque vide no. 136244 in favor of LIC 01/10/2011 which was cleared by OP. He had asked the reason for clearing LIC cheque and returning other three cheques earlier, but did not get any reply, so he lodged his complaint on dated 08/10/2011 with Bank Ombusdman, PNB head office at Bhikaji kama Place, New Delhi, Lokpal and RBI head office for alleged negligence and deficiency in services of OP. It had been stated that except OP head office, none of the bodies replied satisfactorily. OP head office replied that concerned bank had to give information three month earlier for non operative bank account. Thus, he filed this complaint and claimed a sum of Rs 70,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony.

After receiving notice, OP submitted written statement and denied all allegations pertaining to deficiency in their services as they were the Govt. agencies working as the norms and providing services to their customers.  It was admitted that complainant had saving account with them and to update KYC, documents were asked as per RBI guidelines and only in case of non operation of account, it was shifted in non operative category. Whenever account holder approaches for making his account operative, after taking documents for KYC, account as made operative.

It was admitted that all the three cheques vide no. 136241, 136242 and 136243 drawn in favour of MCD were returned due to non operative account, but cheque no. 136244 of Rs 1920/- drawn in favor of LIC was cleared by them because it was for the continuation of his life policy as his balance was also sufficient. If this cheque was also returned then his policy would had lapsed due to nonpayment of policy premium and this was done on humanitarian ground. By clearing LIC cheque, OP had done no wrong or could not be said to be a deficiency in their services. OP had also annexed Ex DW1 as evidence.

 

Complainant submitted rejoinder to the written statement of OP and denied replies submitted by OP. In his evidence he has affirmed on oath in affidavit that all his facts in his complaint and evidences were correct and true which he had annexed as Ex. CW1/1 to 9.    

 

OP also submitted their evidence on oath in affidavit through Sh Baldev Raj Brar, Senior Manager at OP bank, affirmed that OP had replied all the letters written by complainant as marked Ex. OPW1/1 to OPW/16A. It was stated that every quarry was replied appropriately and in time.  It was also stated complainant had full knowledge of his account as non operational and he never came to make his account operative as per the RBI guidelines. Hence, it was prayed that there was no deficiency in their services, so this complaint may be dismissed.  

Notices were issued to the complainant for doing arguments, but despite of being served notices, complainant did not put his appearance, hence arguments were heard, file perused and order was reserved.

After going through all the facts and evidence on record, we have observed from the evidences on record, it is clearly evident that complainant had not obeyed the KYC norms and his saving account was put in non operational as per the RBI guidelines. It was also evident that the main allegation was put on OP for clearing his LIC cheque by OP was deficiency in the services of OP, but after going through all the contents and evidences on record, it was seen that OP had cleared the said LIC cheque purely on humanitarian ground for the continuation of his life policy with LIC. If this said cheque (no. 136244) would had been also returned, complainant’s policy had been lapsed which would had caused lot of harassment to him.  It was also seen that KYC requirement is must for every account to be kept operational, but complainant did not follow this step and started filing number of complaints before all the designated bank authorities for redressal of his grievances.

We have also gone through daily proceedings of Forum where it was seen that complainant was not appearing since long and also did not put his appearance on the date of arguments. Hence, we come to the conclusion by taking merit of this case and evidence submitted by both the parties, there is no merit in complaint as complainant could not prove deficiency of OP by even a single concrete evidence. Hence, we are of the opinion that this complaint deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

 

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari                                                                                                         Shri Sukhdev Singh 

          Member                                                                                                                          President