Joginder Kaur complainant through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that opposite parties may kindly be ordered to defreeze the Saving Account No.3484000103134430 and she be allowed to withdraw the amount laying deposited in her account. She has further claimed compensation for the mental agony and harassment caused by her. She has also claimed Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses including counsel's fee etc. to the tune of Rs.25,000/-, all in the interest of justice.
The case of complainant in brief is that she had been maintaining a Saving Bank Account bearing Account No.3484000103134430 with the opposite party no.1 and had been depositing and withdrawing the amount regularly by availing the services of the Bank, without any objection or hindrance since the opening of the account. It was pleaded that on 19.5.2015, 25.5.2015 and 27.5.2015, complainant presented withdrawal forms which were duly filled and signed by her for payment of Rs.5000/- each time but the opposite party no.1 refused to make the payment of the above said amount with the objection that “A/c Frozen”. Complainant is an illiterate women who only learnt to sign. She asked the Branch Manager and other concerned officials as to why her account had been frozen but no such officials of the opposite party no.1 told the reason for freezing of account. It was further pleaded that no notice was served upon the complainant before sealed/frozen her account by the opposite parties. It was pleaded that complainant is an old aged widow lady whose husband had died in a Bus accident wherein an MACT Claim had been awarded to her by the MACT Gurdaspur, against the Bus owners who are head strong persons and the Bank officials are playing in their hands those are instrumental to harass and pressurize the complainant to compromise with the JDs at a very small amount. It was also pleaded that the entire act and conduct of the opposite party no.1 is against the banking norms, terms of the contract with complainant and their legal liabilities towards the complainant. It was next pleaded that opposite parties have refused to make the payment to the complainant against the withdrawal forms which were duly filled and presented by her on the above mentioned dates which amount to deficiency in service on the parties of the opposite parties, hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party no.1 who appeared through their counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as a letter dated 25.6.2015 was written by the complainant to opposite party no.1 for withdrawing the complainant against the Bank unconditionally. On merits, it was admitted that opposite party no.1 refused to make the payments to the complainant with the objection “A/c Frozen”. It was stated that the reason for frozen the account was that a cheque for the sum of Rs.20,000/- at the name of Smt.Joginde Kaur wife of Dass Singh was deposited in the captioned account but in the form of opening account the name of Joginder Kaur was mentioned as Joginder Kaur wife of Dara Singh. The said reason for freezing the amount was also told to the complainant and later on complainant had submitted her second ID proof to opposite party no.1 in which the name of complainant had been mentioned as Joginder Kaur wife of Dass Singh. The above said second ID proof was the Voter Card of the complainant and after taking the same from the complainant opposite party no.1 was allowed the complainant for operation her account and thereafter complainant withdrew amount from her above said Saving Bank Account from time to time and the Bank had never refused her for withdrawal from her above said account and ready to pay the amount against the withdrawal form if there is balance in the account. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Notice of the complaint was also issued to the opposite party no.2 but it failed to appear and was proceeded against exparte vide our order dated 29.7.2015.
5. Complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.
6. Sh.Sat Pal Branch Manager of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party no.1.
7. We have carefully examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document determined against the backdrop of the respective arguments of the learned counsels of the litigants. We observe that the complained/ reported dispute prompted from the impugned three-time refusal by the OP Bank to the widowed senior citizen complainant to let her withdraw Rs.5,000/- from her account (Ex.C2 to Ex.C4) pleading the factum of ‘A/c Frozen’ on account of deposit of the claim cheque in the name of complainant Joginder Kaur (W/o Dass Singh) whereas the A/c has been in the name of Joginder Kaur (W/o Dara Singh). Somehow, the complainant during the pendency of the complaint entered into some sort of compromise with the OP Bank who have also produced here ‘letter of settlement’ dated 25.06.2015 marked here as: Ex.CX/Ex.OP2 duly signed by the complainant expressing her inclination to withdraw the present complaint. We, also observe from Ex.OP8 copy of the Account Statement that the deposited Cheque in question (finding mention in affidavit Ex.OP.1) for Rs.20,000/- has been credited in the complainant’s account on 13.05.2015 whereas the account already showed a credit balance of Rs.105,714/- and as such the three-time refusal to withdrawals of Rs.5,000/- on 19.05.2015, 25.05.2015 & 27.05.2015 was unfair and unnecessary. Further, the OP Bank’s stage-managed settlement with the subservient complainant on 25.06.2015 (allowing A/c operation on that day) i.e., after 43 days of the cheque deposit (and that too after the institution of the present complaint) does not support the OP’s claim of an orderly customer service. The working of the OP1 Bank Branch calls for a marked updating in its ‘customer-service’ to match the fast changing ‘consumer-scenario’ and the OP2 Controlling Office need to ensure the same to match up the PNB size and status. Lastly, in the light of the reported settlement as duly reached out between the present litigants there is left no dispute for any further resolve.
8. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of by directing the OP Bank to be more considerate and conscientious towards the banking needs of the senior citizen customers especially the illiterate and the downtrodden. The parties are also directed to bear their own costs, here.
9. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
NOV. 27, 2015 Member.
*YP*
