DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 28th day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V.,  President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member              Date of filing: 27/07/2018  

CC/92/2018

Mohamed.K.P

S/o Abdul Khader

Kunnampulli House

Old Lakidi, Akalur (P.O)

Ottappalam Taluk, Palakkad

(By Adv. T.V.Pradeesh)                                    -             Complainant 

Vs

1. The Bank Manager

State Bank of India, Pathirippala

Palakkad Dist.

(By Adv. P.V.Beena)

2. Deepam Aloysius

Chief Manager

SBI, Anandavalleeswaram

Chidanand Towers

Near High School Junction

Kollam                                                              -          Opposite parties 

(By Adv. M.Krishnadas)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member

1. Pleadings of the Complainant.

The complaint is all about the denial of cash withdrawal from the savings account of the complainant by the opposite party bank.      

The complainant went to the opposite party bank on 11/05/2018 for withdrawing Rs. 4000/- from his Savings Bank account.  Though the withdrawal slip was filled up and given at the counter, the opposite party Bank insisted for production of a copy of Aadhar card, for making the payment and hence he had to leave the bank without getting the amount.

Aggrieved by the above action of the opposite party bank, the complainant filed this case against the first opposite party seeking Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as cost.

2. Notice was issued to the first opposite party.  They entered appearance and filed their version on 09/10/2018 denying the allegations made by the complainant.  Their contention is that though the Savings Bank account of the complainant is linked with Aadhar, it was not validated as per the data available with UIDAI.  In this situation, the bank was asking for production of copy of Aadhar for the purpose of validation.  But the customers are allowed to make withdrawals even without production of this.

3. In the meantime the case was referred for mediation, but failed to reach any settlement.  The interim applications filed by the complainant for impleading second opposite party as supplemental opposite party (as she was the Branch Manager on the day of the incident) and to carry out the amendments in the complaint was allowed and the amendments were recorded accordingly.  Second opposite party filed her version denying all allegations.  Her contention is that the complaint hadn't   approached her with any complaint.  She also admits that account holders, whose accounts are not linked with Aadhar, may face problems in withdrawals and if such problems are brought to the notice of the Manager same could have been solved.

4. Issues involved

1. Whether the 1^st opposite party denied cash withdrawal to the complainant from his savings account without any valid reasons?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as to cost &compensation.

5. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked document Ext. A1 as evidence.  First opposite party didn't file proof affidavit.  The second opposite party filed proof affidavit, but didn't mark any documents.  The complainant was cross examined as PW 1.

Issue 1&2

6. The only issue to be examined here is whether the complainant was denied cash withdrawal from his Savings Account without any valid and justifiable reason inspite of having sufficient balance in the Account. 

          According to the opposite parties, linking of Aadhar to the Account is not mandatory for cash withdrawal from the account.  But the 1^st opposite party, has stated that the Aadhar linking has not been validated at UIDAI. 

          The second opposite party claims that the complainant did not approach her with the complaint and she could have solved the issue if it were brought to her notice.

          The only evidence adduced is the withdrawal slip duly signed by the complainant and containing the Bank seal.  During the cross examination of the complainant he had mentioned that the slip was prepared by the counter staff of 1^st opposite party Bank.  The slip was also posted for payment in the computers as can be seen from the Bank seal affixed as it is clearly showing the name of the staff who has done the posting.  Hence it is clear that the decision to deny payment to the complainant was taken by a staff in supervisory/Officer Cadre.  Since the slip is with the complainant there is every reason to believe that the complainant was asked to present the slip along with copy of Aadhar.

          Since both the opposite parties admitted that cash withdrawal cannot be refused for the reason of not linking the Aadhar to Savings Bank Account, why the withdrawal slip posted for payment by the counter staff was not passed subsequently has not been properly explained.  The contention of the 2^nd opposite party that she would have sorted out the issue if the complainant had approached her is not acceptable since, every customer need not be aware that once refused at the counter, the manager may intervene and sort out the issue.  If at all the manager could have used her discretionary power here, the cashier who decided to refuse withdrawal should have referred the matter to the manager and got the issue sorted out; instead of sending the complainant back.

          Further, if the Aadhar is uploaded in the system of the Bank, the complainant has completed his obligations, like handing over of copy of Aadhar card.   

Hence it is amply clear that the complainant was denied cash withdrawal by the opposite party bank without any valid or justifiable reasons.  Aadhar linking is not compulsory for making transactions   in savings account as per law and as admitted by the opposite parties.

Issues 3&4

Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank that is liable to be compensated.

6. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs.

1. The opposite party/bank is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. The opposite party/bank is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards cost.

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of February 2023.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                               Vinay Menon V

                                                         President 

                                                                 Sd/-

                                                         Vidya A

                                   Member   

                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                     Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                            Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:

Ext.A1: Withdrawal slip for Rs. 4000/- dated 11/05/2018 duly signed by the

            complainant and containing the seal of the bank.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined:

PW1: Complainant, Mohamed.K.P

Cost – Rs. 5000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.