DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

DHALAI DISTRICT, KAMALPUR

 

Present: Sri Surya Deo Singh

Date: The  26th Day of July, 2023

 

Case No: 02/CC/KMP/2022

 

PETITIONER:

Sri. Nepal Ch. Dey,

S/o: Girindra Ch. Dey,

of Village- Kulai Bazar, P/S: Ambassa, 

District- Dhalai, Tripura.

 

RESPONDENT:

The Branch Manager, 

Tripura Gramin Bank, 

Kulai Bazar Branch,

Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura

 

 

 

COUNSEL(s):

For the petitioner : Ld. Advocate Mr.  S.S Choudhury and

                                  Mr. S. Choudhury.

For Respondent/OP  : Ld. Advocate Mr. S. K. Deb.

 

 

 

Date of filing          : 24.01.2022

Date of argument  : 30.06.2023

Date of judgment  : 26.07.2023

 

                                                                             JUDGMENT

 

1. The instant complaint was filed by one Sri Nepal Ch. Dey against OP, The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Kulai Branch, Ambassa, Dhalai Tripura under Consumer Protection Act. The complainant sought for compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( One Lakh  only) for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant due to misbehavior of Bank Authority besides crediting Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh only) alongwith appropriate rate of interest from the date of maturity as well as from the date of filling this complaint petition in addition cost of litigation and transportation.

2. The fact of the case as can be gathered from the complaint petition and the evidences is that one Nepal Ch. Dey, S/o: Girindra Ch. Dey, of Village- Kulai Bazar, P/S- Ambassa,  District- Dhalai, Tripura instituted a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Kulai Bazar Branch, Dhalai (Tripura) interalia alleging that on 19.02.2021 the complainant i.e. consumer of that bank, having savings account vide No. 8096011905089, went to the ground floor of that bank and instructed his son Biplab Dey for submitting the  FD MIS No. 0022540 dated 15.07.2011 under senior citizen scheme which is matured on 15.07.2020 alongwith above mentioned S/A Pass book for transfer the maturity amount of MIS Certificate as complainant ( 75 years) is unable to go up and down stairs  due to his illness. 

  It is further claim and allegation of the complainant that son of complainant went to the said branch office and submitted the MIS certificate and Pass book, to the then Manager in charge who told that MIS amount will be credited in the savings account within two or three days. On 23.02.2021 the son of complainant went before the Manager in charge to inquire the matter, then manager in charge answered 'signature mismatch'. The son of complainant asked the manager to give in writing that the signature mismatched or send some one with him infront of whom the complainant, who was standing on the ground floor, will sign as  due to his old age he was unable to go up and down stairs. 

         It is further claim and allegation of the complainant that the manager in charge told that physical presence of customer is mandatory despite repeated request made by the son of complainant that complainant due to old age problem unable to climb up the stairs and also started misbehaving and shouting and one Sanjoy Bhowmik also co-operated with him and at that point they said "we don't care if you can do whatever you want, We will  not give any money, we will  not give you any kind of writing you can leave with your paper we don't need customer like you and your father". 

        It is further claim and allegation of the complainant that despite cordial request made by the son of complainant to the manager in charge for crediting MIS certificate money which is matured on 15.07.2020 to the saving account of complainant, the manager in-charge and the aforesaid boy started swearing in awkward language.  The OP replied that they will not give any money and will not co-operate, and it is not within the ambit of his duty. 

 3. After the complaint was lodged, notice was issued upon the OP. On receiving the notice, the OP appeared and submitted written statement. OP by written statement denied all allegations made upon it by the complainant. OP admitted that Tripura Gramin Bank is constituted under the Regional Rural Bank's Act. 1976 and represented by its Chairman i.e. Principal Officer of the Bank and Principal Officer is not made party in this case as such the said complaint is not maintainable.  

  It is further contention of the respondent that complainant had opened a fixed deposit MIS Account vide account No. 8096140700258 amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three Lakh only) under MIS Scheme for the period of 9 years (108 months) which was matured on 15.07.2020 and in this respect complainant used to get monthly interest amounting to Rs. 2,479/- which was crediting in the savings account vide no. 8096011905089.    

  It is further contention of the respondent that the instant claim petition is not maintainable and complainant suppressed the fact that the savings account vide no. 8096011905089 of complainant was in non operative mode ( i.e. dormant position) w.e.f. 16.12.2019 and despite advise given by OP-Branch to the son of complainant for bringing his father i.e. complainant alongwith KYC documents so that necessary work could be done for making the said savings account in operative mode, complainant was completely silent. 

          It is further contention of the respondent that at the time of encash  of MIS Certificate, the signature of complainant was mismatched and providing door step banking service the Bank has sent one Anjan De (presently deceased), acting as a Business correspondent (BC) to the complainant home and requested the complainant to submit copies of document of KYC i.e. copy of Adhar Card, Pan Card and Voter Card but the son of the complainant replied that they will not hand over the copy of any documents to the OP Branch. 

4. During course of evidence complainant Sri Nepal Ch. Dey examined, cross-examined and discharged as PW-1. Sri Biplab Dey and Sri Raju Paul were examined, cross-examined and discharged as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively.

          On the other hand examination in chief on affidavit of OP No. 1 namely Sri Jhutan Choudhury and OP No. 2 namely Sri Rohan Sinha has been submitted and accordingly they are examined, cross examined and discharged as OPW No.1 and OPW No.2.           

      During course of evidence, PW-1 submitted original FD(MIS) bearing no. 0022540, marked as Exhibit-1 and  also submitted original savings pass book having customer account No. 8096011905089,  marked as Exhibit-2. Besides the aforesaid exhibit PW-1 also submitted copy of complaint addressed to The Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank, Abhoynagar (Head Office) Capital Complex in the letter head of Ld. Advocate Mr. Uttam Kumar Sharma in three pages and copy of postal receipt of the said correspondence to Head office dated 12.03.2021. 

      During course of evidence, OPW No. 1 submitted photo copies filled up account FD (MIS) opening form standing in the name of Nepal Ch. Dey, marked as Ext. A Series and photocopies of filled up SB Account, marked as Ext. B.  

 

5. After hearing the parties and perusing the document submitted by the parties, following issues were framed by the Forum on 17-05-2022:

  (i) Whether the complaint is consumer or not?

  (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature?

  (iii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of OP, The Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank ?

  (iv) Whether complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency on the part of OP, the Branch Manager, Tripura Gramin Bank?

  (v) Whether the complainant is entitled to any other relief or reliefs?

6. We have heard the argument of Ld Counsel of both the parties at length though both of them filed written argument. It is argued by Ld. Counsel Mr. S.S. Choudhury appearing for the complainant that OP Bank took the plea that despite S.B. A/C of the complainant was lying dormant since 16.12.2019, the monthly interest of Rs 2479/- had been regularly credited in the S.B. A/C of the complainant till 15.07.2020. According to Ld. Counsel, this plea is itself self contradictory. Further Ld. Counsel added in his argument that OP Bank admitted in his cross-examination that there was no any written communication from their side for submission of necessary document for KYC purpose.

It is his last submission that the complainant is old aged senior citizen and FD (MIS) was opened under senior citizenship scheme and it is duty of OP Bank to inform him about KYC updation.

On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the OP Bank Sanjib Deb argued that the complainant suppressed the facts that his account was lying dormant since 16.12.2019, despite the conscious knowledge of the facts by his son Biplab Deb. The said Biplab Deb also suppressed that the OP Bank sent Sri Anjan De (now deceased) a business correspondent to the complainant home for complying the procedure of KYC and they paid no heed to the said important procedure of KYC updation.

It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the OP that, Sri Rohan Sinha, one of staff asked the complainant to submit document for KYC purpose when his signature mismatched with specimen signature of A/C opening form. The said facts also reiterated by Bank Manager, Jhutan Choudhary. It is further contended by Ld. Counsel that the OP Bank respectfully informed before the Hon'ble District Commission by submitting the written objection and Examination-in-chief that without the savings account make in functional (i.e. operative) mode and without submission of KYC document, no amount is being transferred into  savings account of the Complainant and as such, the Complainant has to produce the copies of documents of KYC (Know Your Customer) viz. copy of Adhar Card, PAN Card and Voter ID card etc. 

It is further contended that from the very beginning the OP Bank agreed to disburse the said amount in the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant into the savings account of the Complainant following the due process (i.e. comparing/ matching the signature of the complainant before disbursement, savings account should be in functional mode etc), but, till today even during the pendency of the case, the Complainant did not turn up before the O.P. Branch physically and did not submit the KYC document to verify his respective account for crediting the amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- into his savings account on submission of KYC documents and after matching the signature of the Complainant and after savings account in functional mode, the OP-Bank is ready to disburse the fixed deposited amount in the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- into the saving account of the Complainant.

7. Taking into consideration the submission of the engaged Counsel of the parties and material available on record, lets decide the issue of the case.

Issue no (i) and (ii) are taken up together for discussion and decision. 

In the instant case there is no dispute as to locus standi  of complainant to lodge the complaint as well as the jurisdictional  matter with limitation period. However the OP Bank denied and disputed the facts that there is no cause of action in the instant case. For the sake of convenience, it is to be pointed out that cause of action is bundle of facts which is required to be proved to grant relief to the plaintiff. Cause of action not only refers to the infringement but also the material facts on which right is founded.

It appears from the available material on record that there is allegation of not crediting the FD (MIS) certificate amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the SB A/C of complainant by taking the plea of mismatching signature and later on taking the plea of non updation of KYC norms by the OP Bank.

Hence, in the said facts and circumstances where one party alleges negligence and other party denied it, will culminates into cause of action for filing the complaint once again.

Hence point no (i) and (ii) are decided affirmatively.

 

8. Point No. (iii), (iv) and (v) are taken together for discussion and decision. For the sake of convenience, it is not wise to repeat the claim and allegation of the complaint once again.

Now, on meticulous perusal of available material on record including evidences of both sides, it appears that the OP, Bank denied to credit the  matured FD (MIS) of Rs. 3,00,000/- in the SB A/C of the complainant on the ground of mismatching of signature and non updation of KYC.

It is to mention here that Reserve Bank of India has framed KYC direction, 2016 (updated on 4th may 2023). 

In order to prevent banks and other financial institutions from being used as a channel for Money Laundering (ML)/ Terrorist Financing (TF) and to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system, efforts are continuously being made both internationally and nationally, by way of prescribing various rules and regulations.

In terms of the provisions of the PML Act, 2002 and the PML Rules, 2005, as amended from time to time by the Government of India, Regulation Entities (REs) are required to follow certain customer identification procedures while undertaking a transaction either by establishing an account-based relationship or otherwise and monitor their transactions.

Section 2(a) of the direction provides for application of the direction to all its entities except specifically mentioned otherwise.

Further subsection (b), (c), (d) and (e) of section 10 read as follows:

(b) No account is opened where the RE is unable to apply appropriate CDD measures, either due to non-cooperation of the customer or non-reliability of the documents/information furnished by the customer.

(c) No transaction or account-based relationship is undertaken without following the CDD procedure.

(d) The mandatory information to be sought for KYC purpose while opening an account and during the periodic updation, is specified.

(e) Additional information, where such information requirement has not been specified in the internal KYC Policy of the RE, is obtained with the explicit consent of the customer.

Section 11 specifically provides that Customer Acceptance Policy shall not result in denial of banking/ financial facility to members of the general public, especially those, who are financially or socially disadvantaged.

Sub Section (a) and (c) of Section 13 provides that the RE shall undertake identification of customer at the time of Commencement of an account-based relationship with the customer and when there is a doubt about the authenticity or adequacy of the customer identification data it has obtained.

And lastly, Sub Section (e) of Section 14 provides that the ultimate responsibility for customer due diligence and undertaking enhanced due diligence measures, as applicable, will be with the RE.

There is also provision of V-CIP procedure for identification and obtaining information for identification purpose.

Section 38 of the direction envisages periodic updation of KYC which reads as follows:

REs shall adopt a risk-based approach for periodic updation of KYC. However, periodic updation shall be carried out at least once in every two years for high-risk customers, once in every eight years for medium risk customers and once in every ten years for low-risk customers from the date of opening of the account /last KYC updation. Policy in this regard shall be documented as part of REs' internal KYC policy duly approved by the Board of Directors of REs or any committee of the Board to which power has been delegated.

In case of no change in the KYC information, a self-declaration from the customer in this regard shall be obtained through customer's email-id registered with the RE, customer's mobile number registered with the RE, ATMs, digital channels (such as online banking/internet banking, mobile application of RE), letter, etc.

From the above discussion, it appears that Bank authority is duly bound to carry out the updation of KYC norms.

In case of financially and socially disadvantage class it is incumbent upon Bank authority to reach at the door of the customer to provide services. So far as regard the evidence available on record though OP admitted that they sent one Anjan De (now deceased) a business correspondence for the KYC purpose but register or other written documents has not been exhibited which at least reflect that OP provided door step services to Senior Citizen which will be relevant u/s 34 of Indian Evidence Act.

However OP is still admitting that they are ready to credit the amount of Rs 3,00,000/- FD (MIS) in SB A/C of complainant if the documents pertaining to KYC will be submitted by complainant.

We have carefully gone to the evidence of witnesses and the documents which has been marked exhibits.

PW-1 reiterated his version what has been stated by him in his complaint.

It reveals from his cross-examination that he admitted that he does not know whether he has given any authorization letter to his son Biplab Deb (PW-2) to encash matured FD amount. PW-1 also admitted that his S/B A/C was activated till 2019 and after that he did not deposit any money in the said account. It also reveals that he did not meet with Bank Manager and it is within his knowledge that  Rs 3,00,000/- could not be deposited when his signature mismatch.

PW-2 is the son of the complainant (PW-1). He admitted in his cross examination that Bank manager advised him to come with his father (PW-1) when signature found mismatch.

It is also admitted by him that he did not come with his father before Bank authority for transferring money.

PW-3 is the friend of PW-2 as reveals from his cross-examination. His evidence is not in favour of the PW-1 in respect of facts in issue as he was not in chamber of Bank Manager or had a conversation with Bank Manager.

Now come to the appreciation of evidence of OP. OPW-1 is a Bank Manager.

His examination in chief reiterated the facts what has been stated in W/S.

OPW-1 admitted in his cross-examination that there was no written communication from the side of Bank to the A/C holder regarding submitting any KYC documents.

OPW-2 is also Bank staff. He admitted in cross-examination that they informed PW-1 to submit KYC when his signature found mismatch but he never submitted the same.

From the evidence on record it is clear that Bank authority did not inform the customer PW-1 in writing or through electronic communication to submit KYC detail for which the matured FD (MIS) amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- could not be transferred to his Saving Bank A/C.

It is foremost duty of Bank Authority to inform about updation of KYC detail. The manuals in this regard i.e. master Direction KYC direction, 2016, updated 4th may 2023 has already been framed by RBI to be followed by Bank authority and it is corresponding duty cast upon the complainant (customer) to furnish documents for KYC updation.

Had the complainant being informed about updation of KYC, the situation may not arise.

No written memo of return has been given to the PW-1 or PW-2 despite signature mismatch. Whenever Bank authority finds insufficient founds, signature mismatch etc, he has to furnish memo of return with reason but in the instant case OP Tripura Gramin Bank, Kulai Branch fails to do so.

The complainant informed the Head Office by Ld. Advocate letter regarding non crediting of FD (MIS) certificate amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- but no correspondence has been made by the Bank authority in reply.

Nowhere we found that OP Bank authority informed the complainant  regarding KYC updation or mismatch of signature.

In the summation it is found that the Bank authority was negligence  in providing service to a senior citizen. At the same time it is also found that the complainant had not co-operated with Bank authority.

Accordingly, point No. (iii), (iv) and (v) are decided in favour of complainant. 

 

9. Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

  that, the OP Tripura Gramin Bank Kulai Branch, Ambassa shall update the S/B account of complainant bearing no. A/C No 8096011905089 after taking necessary documents from the complainant. When the matter has came up before forum than it is presumed that complainant has knowledge to submit the KYC details to Bank authority, than in that situation complainant is directed to provide all necessary documents to OP Bank.

 

10. Apart from that a compensation of Rs 10,000/- is awarded to complainant for his mental agony and trauma which he has to suffered at the instances of OP at the age of (75 years) and Rs. 5000/- for litigation cost.  The OP Bank is directed to compensate the complainant within 2 (two) months of this order/ judgment.

 

11. The complainant is entitled to an interest @ 6% on matured FD(MIS) sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-(Three Lakhs) only from the date of filing of complaint before this forum i.e. 24.01.2022.

 

12. Return the original document after maintaining due procedure.

13. Office is directed to supply the copy of judgment free of cost to the parties.  

14.       The case is thus disposed of on contest.

15.       Make necessary entry in the relevant register.  

 

                                             PRONOUNCED

 

 

 

 

 

(DIPALI SINHA)                      (H.L. DEBBARMA)              (S. DEO SINGH)

 

       MEMBER                                MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER       DISTRICT CONSUMER       DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL       DISPUTES REDRESSAL     DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION                         COMMISSION                   COMMISSION

DHALAI TRIPURA :              DHALAI TRIPURA:           DHALAI TRIPURA:

KAMALPUR KAMALPUR KAMALPUR