ORDER

BY SRI.H.R.SRINIVAS, PRESIDENT.

This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant U/S Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service in deducting a sum of Rs.3,871/- being the income tax from his account even though Form No.15G was given, for refund of Rs.1,311.50 which has been debited from his account, for visa-POS/UCO bank Mumbai transaction which he has never done, and for refund of 1,056.20 ps., taken from his account as processing fee for gold loan, and for Rs.30,000/- towards causing mental agony and cost of the complaint and for other reliefs as the Commission deems fit.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that;

The complainant is an account holder with the OP, having account No.03630104000002196. OP offered to its customer who have fixed deposit of Rs.7,50,000/- with ‘0’ balance facility or maintain Rs.1,00,000/- on a average monthly basis as “preferred customers”.  Complainant has satisfied the said conditions. For the preferred customers, the bank could issue DD /bankers cheque and electronic fund transfer, free of cost, unlimited withdrawal of cash from ATM, home banking, 50% discount on locker fee, and no process fee on loans of any kind. The complainant is a second joint account holder, whereas his mother is the first joint account holder, which is to be operated by either or survivor. It is contended that though for the year 2017-18 to save deduction in income tax, he had submitted form NO.15G to OP, OP misplaced the same and deducted a sum of Rs.3,871/- towards the same. OP is liable to reverse the same to his account which was deducted from his account due to negligence. There was some fraudulent transaction, from his account through debit card.  He has never used the said debit card at Bombay and that he had never been to Bombay since 1999.  When the same was brought to the notice of the bank, after getting the pass book updated as no communication through SMS was sent through his registered mobile, OP has not at all reverted the said amount to his account. OP is liable to refund the said amount to his account.  Further he visited the bank branch on 06.08.2018 for gold loan of Rs.4,45,000/- for which OP has charged Rs.1,056.20 as processing fee which OP is not liable to levy the same as he is a “preferred customer” and also as per the guidelines of the RBI.  Inspite of bringing the same to the notice, OP has deliberately not responded and not refunded the same and hence the complaint.

3.      Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the Commission and filed its version contending that it is carrying on banking business activity as per the guidelines of the Banking Regulation Act.  Complainant joined himself as a third applicant, his wife as second applicant, his mother as first applicant, opened an account with it bearing No. 0363104000002196 and also has an FD of Rs.5,00,000/- and 2,00,000/-.  He is a preferred customer of the bank.  He also availed gold loan from the bank.  This complaint is filed making false allegation of negligence and deficiency in service.

4.      It is further contended that the complaint is filed on false, baseless and untenable allegation of misplacing form No.15G and as a result a sum of Rs.3871/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.  It requested the complainant to provide the acknowledgement for having submitted Form No.15G to it.  Inspite of it, complainant did not provide the acknowledgement.

5.      It is further contended that as soon as the complainant raised the objection in respect of deduction of Rs.655.75 twice,  the bank immediately attended to his complaint and raised the issue with the debit card operator scheme and the same was confirm that the said transactions were genuine, and it was an online transaction performed under two factor authentication, environment and OTP delivered on the registered mobile number/Email ID and the complainant has authenticated the transaction with OTP received on his mobile number.

6.      It is contended that as per the schedule facility signed by the complainant, the listed facilities are provided as per the agreement and no discount loan available for the loan availed by the complainant. As per the agreement signed by the complainant, while availing the gold loan it was clearly stated that the complainant is liable to pay applicable charges as per the bank policy. In view of this, OP has not committed any negligence or unfair trade practice.  It is mandatory for the bank to update the KYC once in every three years as per the RBI guidelines.  It is mandatory for all the applicants/account holder to update their KYC documents with the bank.  The first and second applicant have submitted their respective pan card as ID proof and signature proof whereas, the complainant only submitted his address proof and informed the OP that individual address proof is not available for other two applicants. For which OP suggested to furnish relationship proof to establish the relationship and address. In this connection, OP also sent a letter to the complainant on 15.03.2019 stating that KYC of all account holders need to be updated and requested to submit valid documents of identity, signature and address as per the banking guidelines. Inspite of it, the said letter written to complainant was returned without service on the ground of insufficient address not known. The personal of the OP bank, visited the house of the complainant to obtain the photograph of his mother who is a senior citizen and not able to travel. It has been co-operating with the customers and complainant.  Inspite of it, complainant has raised false allegation and untenable reasons and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

7.      In order to prove the case, both the parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1:            In the Affirmative

POINT NO.2:            Partly in the affirmative.

                                For the following.

REASONS

9.     POINT No.1:-

   Perused the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and the documents produced by respective parties.  It is not in dispute that the complainant is also one of the joint account holders of account No.03630104000002196 the fact of deducting Rs.3,871/- from his account towards income tax is admitted by OP and it is its contention that the complainant did not submit Form 15-G and when the complainant brought the same to the notice to OP that he has submitted Form No.15-G he was asked to produce the acknowledgement for having handed over the form to the Manager of the bank.

        10.   The complainant has not produced the acknowledgement for having handed over Form No15G either to the bank or to this forum even after filing of this complaint, to show his bonafides.

        11.   Ex.P.3 is the bank statement wherein the bank has deducted Rs.655.75 on 08.06.2017 twice in respect of the transaction made by the account holders through point of sale. Ex.P4 is the document sent by one Arpita Sinha the Assistant Manager of the OP bank, acknowledging the email complaint with regard to the deduction of 655.75 X 2 for the POS transaction and also informed that they will get back to him at the earliest. Ex.P6 is also the account statement, wherein a sum of Rs.1,050.20 has been deducted as gold loan processing fee on 06.08.2018 and according to the complainant he is a preferred customer and not liable for any processing charges. It is also intimated as per Ex.P1 that certain charges which are not initially disclosed to the borrower levying of such fees subsequently without disclosing the same to the borrower is an unfair trade practice. OP has also acknowledged the receipt of the notice as per Ex.P8.  OP has admitted that complainant is a preferred customer.

12.   On the contrary OP has produced the free services provided to its customer and also the agreement with condition for which complainant has signed wherein at condition No.13 it is mentioned that I/we agree to pay to the bank applicable charges, penal interest for nonpayment delay in repayment of loan/for the unclaimed gold after tennur /closure of the loan as per the terms of sanction.” Either in the broacher filed in respect of free services or in the agreement signed by the complainant while obtaining the loan, there is no mention of waiver of processing fee to the preferred customer.  Further as mentioned above complainant has not produced any acknowledgement for having submitted form NO.15-G.

13.   Inspite of it as per Ex.P9 sent by the OP to the complainant, as per their mutual meeting on June 28^th, 2019, they agreed that birth certificate of the daughter of the complainant to show the relationship validation to be provided.  Debit card transaction, OP has agreed to reverse one transaction of Rs.655.75 and also regarding reversal of gold loan processing fee, they have taken the approval from their higher authorities regarding the same.

14.   When this is taken into consideration, inspite of OP producing above referred documentary evidence, it becomes clear that OP had agreed to refund Rs.655.75 which was deducted from his account on account of fraudulent transaction from his account and also agreed to reverse the gold loan processing fee.  In view of this we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP in not adhering to the contents of Ex.P.9 and hence answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.

15.   In the result when the OP has agreed to reverse Rs.655.75 against their own contention that the said transaction is carried out by the complainant under 2FA, they are bound to refund the amount agreed along with Rs.655.75 in respect of the second transaction.

16.   OP is also liable to reverse the processing fee of gold loan of Rs.1,050.20 and remit the same to the account of the complainant. In the absence of the acknowledgement forhaving submitted form No.15-G, we are of the opinion that as a sum of Rs.3,871/- has been deducted and remitted towards the income tax, the same may be claimed by the complainant from the income tax department and hence answer point No.2 partly in the affirmative and pass the following;

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed in part with cost.
2. OP is directed to refund by way of account adjustment by transferring a sum of Rs.655.75 X 2 = 1,311.50 and further to pay an interest of 6% on the said amount from 08.06.2017 till the payment of the said amount.
3. OP is also directed to refund a sum of Rs.1,050.20 which was deducted from his account towards gold loan processing fee to the account of the complainant along with interest at 6% on the same from 06.08.2019 till the payment of the entire amount.
4. OP is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-towards damages and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation expenses.
5. Complainant is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.3,871/- being the amount deducted towards income tax for not submitting 15G application from the income tax department.
6. The OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 15 days thereafter.
7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note:You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this 29^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021)

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the Form No.16 A

Ex P2: Copy of the letter address to OP

Ex. P3: Copy of the My Bank Statement

Ex P4: Copy of the Email sent by OP

Ex P5: Copy of the RBI guidelines

Es P6: Copy of another Bank Statement.

Ex P7: Copy of the RBI guidelines

Ex P8: Copy of the my representation to OP

Ex P9: Copy of the two emails

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

• NIL -

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

• NIL -

MEMBER                                PRESIDENT