Delhi

East Delhi

CC/264/2015

CHARAT - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

06 Dec 2016

ORDER

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

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

                                                                                 Consumer complaint no.        264/2015

                                                                                               Date of Institution               05/05/2015

                                                                                               Order Reserved on              06/12/2016

                                                                                                  Date of Order                    07/12/2016  

                                                                                                        

In matter of

Mr. Charat Ram, adult   

R/o 16/20, Kasturba Nagar

Delhi 110032…………………………..………………....………..…………….Complainant

                                                                   

                                                                         Vs

1The Chairman –PNB  

7 Bhikaji Kama Place

New Delhi 110007

 

2 The General Manager PNB

Rajendra Bhawan (circle Office)

Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008

 

3 The Deputy General Manager – (Grievance Cell)

Rajendra Bhawan (circle Office)

Rajendra Place, New Delhi 110008

 

4 The Senior Manager – PNB

A-5, Vivek Vihar, Phase 2,

Delhi 110092 …………..……………………………………………………….Respondents

 

Complainant………………………………….………………….In Person 

Opponent’s Advocate…………………………………….…Harendra Kumar Jauhari    

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari              Member                                                                                                    

                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur   Member

 

Order by Dr P N Tiwari, Member 

Brief Facts of the case                                                                                                

Complainant was having a saving bank account in OP4 bank vide saving account no. 4235000100187089. There was deduction of Rs 300/ from complainant’s account.

 

On 12/04/2014 he submitted an application for getting his nomination in the Prime Minister relief fund at OP4. After receiving the application, he again went on 19/04/2014 for re nomination in his wife’s name and application was again accepted.  Complainant again went on 29/08/2014 for nomination at lunch time, so he was told to wait till lunch get over. As per complaint, he wasted over two hours outside the bank, so he lodged a complaint to senior bank manager of OP4 stating -

1-No lunchtime was written outside bank,

2-There was no name plate on the table of employee as it was a public dealing,

3-No details about zonal officer’s address for complaining grievances.

 

Thereafter, he send his complaint to OP1, 2 &3 on 04/09/2014, 17/04/2014 and 19/04/2014.  He went to Bank of Maharashtra for doing nomination in Prime Minister Relief Fund. He was told that nomination could be done only under individual’s name and not under firm’s name.

 

Bank had deducted Rs 100/- every time for getting nomination process.  Later he received a letter from customer service office from Internal Ombudsman, PNB, head office at 5, Sansad Marg, New Delhi 01 stating that OP were unable to accept his nomination under PM relief fund.  

 

Complainant stated that if he dies in one year then who would get his bank amount at OP4. He further stated that he was a patient of number of age related ailments and unable to walk without aid.  He alleged that he was made to sign on a blank paper brought by OP 2 and 4 by the concerned officials who came to his house and told that such mistake happen sometime and insisted to withdraw his complaint and also recorded his voice through mobile phone. By these processes, he was harassed mentally and physically, so filed this complaint for getting compensation of Rs 50,000/-from OPs.  

 

Notices were served. OPs jointly submitted their written statement denying all the allegations made against OPs. It was submitted that as per the process of doing nomination, bank always

 

charges some nominal amount and here complainant was changing his nomination frequently either in the name of Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and in his wife’s name, whereas nomination was already existing in his wife’s name as per standard bank policy.  

As per OPs statement, there was no harassment to complainant as their higher official also visited his house, but complainant was adamant to proceed against all the OPs without any fault or deficiency in their services. So, this complaint be dismissed.

Parties filed their evidences on affidavit which were on record. Complainant also submitted his follow up medical treatment records pertaining to old age ailments.

 

Arguments were heard and order was reserved.  

 

After going through all the facts and evidences on record, we also observed NOMINATION ENACTMENT under Banking Regulation Act which was amended in 1984 where sections 45ZA to 45 ZF were added to the Act for providing nomination facility in the Banks.

After notification in the Govt. of India Gazette on 29^th March 1985, nomination facility was introduced in banks with effect from 29/03/1985. Having gone through in detail about this Act, the relevant head has been reproduced here as under—

*What type of Account-

Nomination facility is available only in respect of a deposit account held in individual capacity (including sole proprietor, CA account) of the depositor(s) and not in any respective capacity. As such no nomination can be made in case of account in the name of a company, firm, HUF, Association and trust etc.”  

*Who can be appointed as nominee-

Only individual can be appointed as nominee. Nomination cannot be made in favor of firms/companies/HUF or any representative bodies.

 

So, after going through the regulations of nomination, complainant cannot nominate a body under the name of Prime Minister Relief Fund in his saving bank account.

 

Also by frequent changing nomination from his wife’s name to other and again in his wife’s name, OP4 bank has charged prescribed charges which were rightly deducted from complainant’s account. As complainant was taking various medications for OSA, COPD, CAD, T2DM, HTN and OA Gd III in both knees had to take lot of medications, so mental concentration becomes very weak and one becomes hypersensitive for one reason or other. Under these situations, we cannot say that the mental status was normal at the time of frequent changes for nomination.

 

Hence, there was no deficiency seen in OP4  bank and other OPs. Thus complainant has failed to prove deficiency even on single concrete evidence against OPs.

 

We come to the conclusion that this complaint be dismissed with cost, but considering status of complainant having various age related ailments, we dismiss this complaint without cost.

 

Simultaneously, we also direct OP bank to be more cautious toward their duties and working under various acts and regulations applicable on them time to time.

 

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

 

Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member                                                                        (Dr) P N Tiwari Member                                                      

 

 

                                       

                                                     Shri Sukhdev Singh President