J U D G M E N T.
Brief facts of the case is that :- The Complainant/Petitioner has filed this case after being aggrieved in the act of O.P. B.M., (S.B.I.) Azad Chowk Branch, Khariar Dist. Nuapada. The O.P. has hold the account of the petitioner who is a customer of O.P. having his Saving Bank Account vide No. 31309687414 and the balance in the account is Rs.36,000/-.
The account of the complainant has set hold on dated 19.7.2016 when he came to know after operating the account through ATM for the petitioner money is too much required for treatment of his ailing father who has been under treatment at Bhubaneswar for Chronic Sugar Patient. The complainant has by enquiry to B.M. SBI, came to know his account has been put on hold, the reason not mentioned by O.P. according to the petition of the complainant even the complainant send a pleader notice to O.P. through his pleader on dated 01.8.2016 and the O.P. has received the pleader notice on dated 02.8.2016. For the said hold account of the complainant, the O.P. has never intimated about the matter before the holding of the account of the petitioner. The advocate of the O.P. has replied to one by using unjustified reasons. The petitioner is staying at Khariar having his account at the O.P. SBI, Azad Chowk, Khariar and often stay outside for business and medical purpose of his father. For that he filed this petition for financial hardship and mental agony and pray for open the account to be functioned and pay Rs. 4,000/- for compensation towards deficiency in service by the O.P.
The O.P. SBI, Azad Chowk, Branch Khariar has filed his written version/ statement on dated 25.10.2016 prior to that the O.P. has sent a pleader notice, replying the matter of deficit and document required for opening or functional of the account of the petitioner. The O.P. has only given notice for filing of KYC before O.P., due to the account holder transaction in the past two years is suspicious and doubtful it is mandatory as per PML Act, 2002.
The customer should be informed present address of him before the Bank where the account is exists. The O.P. (SBI, Azad Chowk, Khariar) also suspected and observed the transaction of his customer (present complainant) due to bouncing of high value cheque and insufficient balance in the account. For that the O.P. has sent notice
and reminder to the customer present petitioner. The O.P. has filed certified copy of N.I. Act case pending before thee J.M.F.C., Khariar vide No. ICC Case No.-4 of 2016. The complainant being a customer of O.P. who has bounced three check issued by him in different date and amount as certified copy filed by the O.P. The present complainant/petitioner as a customer of O.P. he has dishonor the cheque due to insufficient balance by high amount of transaction are being made during the past two years still the present petitioner has never filed KYC and not received any corresponding letter of O.P. and found absent in his residence .The advocate for the petitioner argued that set hold of the non function of account of a customer is clear instance of deficiency in service by the Op.As the customer/petitioner has opened his account by filing the requisite documents at the time of opening of account and the OP SBI ,Khariar has no right to hold the account of the customer without any prior notice or intimation .Hence the Op has to compensate the claims filed by the petitioner due to deficient in their service as a Service Provider.
Observed the record and the petition of the complainant and version of the OP. The Hon’ble Forum has observed that the set hold of account of the complainant with sufficient reasons thereof by the OP genuine and proper as the OP has only requested K.Y.C. for the account holder. The Op has suspected the highly transaction of the present petitioner and bouncing of 3 high valued cheque due to insufficient balance in the account of the customer.The petitioner has neither received the notice of the Bank ( OP) nor filed KYC before the Bank for his fresh address and present personally in the OP ( B.M., SBI ,Azad Chowk ,Khariar .The petitioner has never come to Forum in clean hand for any kind relief and compensation.
O R D E R
Perused record and after hearing and argument by the counsel of both the parties the Hon’ble Forum has decided the transaction made by the petitioner and non-cooperation of the statement of the OP even the petitioner personally never appear before the Forum except his advocate . Therefore his act is doubtful and suspicious and suppresses the material facts in this case.
Hence this case is not maintainable and dismissed without any cost.
Judgment pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 3rd day of January 2017.
