DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR(MOHALI)

                                       Consumer Complaint No.587 of 2019                                                 Date of institution:   24.04.2019                                               Date of decision: 18.05.2020  

Baljit Singh Rana & Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana R/o 3 Krausche Road, Warren, NJ 07059USA through Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur W/o Bhupinderpal Singh R/o H.No.910 Phase 3B2, Mohali.

……..Complainants

Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Phase 3B2, Mohali.

2. The Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Plot No.1-6. Sector-5, Panchkula, Pin Code-134109.

…..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Coram

Ms. Natasha Chopra, Presiding Member       

Shri  Inderjit, Member

Present:             Ms. Adarshpal Kaur, counsel for complainants.

                        Shri Suresh Luthra, counsel for OPs.                   

ORDER

By Inderjit, Member.

                        Complainants, Baljit Singh Rana & Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana residents of 3 Krausche Road, Warren, NJ 07059USA through Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur wife of Bhupinderpal Singh R/o H.No.910 Phase 3B2, Mohali, have filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as “the OPs”) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainants are residents of USA and have an NRO account No.07942061000175 with OP No.1. During their visit to India, the complainants visited OP No.1 on 13.02.2017 for the purpose of operating the said account but it was informed by the Branch Manager of OP No.1 that since the complainants have not operated the said account for long, hence the same has been categorized as dormant and the operation cannot be allowed in the said account.  The complainants made a formal request vide their letter dated 13.02.2017 for reactivation of the said account. The complainants were advised by the dealing officials of OP No.1 to make representation along with their ID proofs and also make some deposit in the said account by way of foreign cheque as a confirmation of the identity of the complainants. Accordingly, the complainants submitted fresh representation on 15.02.2017 along with their identity proofs and also deposited a cheque No.031201360 dated 15.02.2017 for US $ 10 drawn on TD Bank, America. The complainants were interested to close the said account after its reactivation. However officials of OP No.1 informed the complainants that reactivation of account shall take some time. Therefore, the officials of OP No.1 advised the complainants to hand over a letter of authority to some local person, duly attested by the notary for the purpose of reactivation of said account. The complainants got prepared one authority letter duly attested by the notary of Noida (UP) in favour of Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur W/o Dr. Bhupinder Singh of Mohali. When Mrs. Gaganjit kaur approached OP No.1 for closure of the said account, the officials of OP No.1 again informed that some more formalities are required to be completed. The complainants again completed all the formalities and submitted the fresh documents to OP No.1 through their said authorized person Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur.  But despite completing all the formalities as desired by OP No.1 and numerous personal visits to  the office of OP No.1, OP No.1 failed to close the account and also failed to pay the proceeds thereof to the  said authorized person of the complainants.  The authorized person of complainants Smt. Gaganjit Kaur also served a legal notice dated 19.02.2018 upon the OP but all in vain. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on their part. Hence this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to close the  said account of the complainants and hand over proceeds thereof to the said authorized person of the complainants along with interest and further to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for inconvenience & harassment and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.             The complaint is contested by the OPs, who filed their joint written version to the complaint. In their written version, the OPs raised preliminary objection that the complaint is not maintainable as the present complaint has been filed through Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur, who was only authorized for closure of the account No.07942061000175 and she was not authorized to file the present complaint on behalf of the complainants. As regards the facts of the complaint, the OPs stated that both Sh. Baljit Singh Rana and Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana had contacted OP No.1 to operate their said account but due to non-operation of the said account for more than two years, the said account had become dormant on 14.02.2015 as per RBI/Bank guidelines and both the account holders had requested to reactivate the said account. Both were advised to fill the new application form OF148A and OF148B along with copies of Passport, Valid Visa proof, Mobile Number, Email ID, ITIN/EIN/SSN information, OCI/PIO (required for foreign citizen) Card, foreign residence proof, Local Indian residence address proof as per RBI/Bank guidelines for activation of account and for establishing their NRI status. But they never completed the said formalities. It is further stated that Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur had come to the office of OP No.1 and asked to close the said account and to give the proceeds of the said account in cash to her. But OP No.1 told Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur to complete all the formalities and produce valid mandate from both Baljit Singh Rana and Davinder Kaur Rana duly verified by embassy of USA in her favour. But she never produced any valid mandate to OP No.1. However, OP No.1 was and is ready to issue the demand draft in favour of Sh. Baljit Singh Rana and Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana but Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur refused to accept the same.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OPs prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             As per latest instructions received from Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab there is no need to record evidence of the parties and as such after hearing arguments of counsel for parties and going through produced record, this complaint is decided.

5.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant narrated the whole tale of woes, the actual account holders of the said account and their authorised representative had to bear at the hands of OPs for getting the said account reactivated which, however, has not so far been re-activated. Ld. Counsel prayed for ordering the OPs to reactivate and subsequently close the said account of said Baljit Singh Rana and Devinder Kaur Rana and handover the proceeds of the account to Mrs. Gaganjeet Kaur, their authorised representative.

6.             At the very outset before touching the merits of the complaint, Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that Mrs. Gaganjit Kaur has no locus standi to file the present complaint as she was only authorized by Sh. Baljit Singh Rana and Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana for closure of account No.07942061000175 and that final payment should be made to her vide letter of authority Ex.C-3.  Mrs. Gaganjeet Kaur has not produced any authority letter vide which she was specifically authorised/empowered by complainants to institute the complaint. We agree with the contentions raised by ld. Counsel for the OPs and have gone through the letter of authority Ex.C-3 dated 15.02.2017 produced by complainants.  It is only mentioned in the letter of authority that Gaganjeet Kaur has only been authorised to close account No.07942061000175 of Sh. Baljit Singh Rana and Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana and that final payment should be made to her. Mrs. Gaganjeet Kaur has not been able to establish by producing any document whereby she has been authorised/empowered by Sh. Baljit Singh Rana and Smt. Devinder Kaur Rana to institute the complaint on their behalf. Thus, Mrs. Gaganjeet Kaur has no locus standi to file the present complaint and as such the present complaint is not maintainable.

7.             In view of above discussion, present complaint is hereby dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to costs.

8.             Arguments were heard on 04.03.2020 and the order could not be pronounced due to rush of work and thereafter due to situation arising on account of COVID-19. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

May 18, 2020.

                                                                (Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

                                                                Presiding Member

(Inderjeet)

Member