DATE OF FILING: 10.08.2016
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 22.05.2018
Sri Karuna Kar Nayak, President.
The complainant Dr. Shyamakant Jena, Advocate has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party ( in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is a bonafide customer of the O.P. vide its Saving Bank account No. 32504129561. The said account was opened during September 2012 by submitting all the necessary identity and address proof to the O.P. and continuously operating the same till date. All of a sudden without any instruction from any corner or without giving any prior intimation to the complainant, on 12.06.2013 the O.P. “Set Hold” an amount of Rs.12,726/-. Thereby the ledger balance and the actual balance was found unmatched. All the personal efforts of the complainant were made unnoticed, at last without having any alternative the complainant asked for the passbook and requested for cheque book facility and thereby updated the passbook on 08.07.2016 and could able to know about the discrepancies made in the account made by the O.P. Immediately after getting the information about the discrepancies made in the account on the same day the complainant consulted the authorized officer and simultaneously with the Branch Manager and requested to know the reason for such financial discrepancies. The O.P. asked the complainant to give an application in writing to ascertain the facts behind such discrepancies made. The complainant submitted a written application dated 11.07.2016 to the authorized officer of the Bank as instructed by the O.P. with endorsement and it was told to the complainant that within seven days the O.P. will intimate about the discrepancies but in vain. Even after submission of the written application and inspite of several approaches of the complainant to the O.P. was with no result and it was told by the authorized officer that, “We do not have any information for the period of such discrepancies of set hold”. Further told by the O.P. to the complainant that, “exactly we do not know how set hold took place and asked the complainant to proceed legally”. Even till filing of this complainant neither any reply made nor any steps have been taken up by the O.P. to the grievance of the complainant. It clearly shows the carelessness and over act, that clearly violates the legal and contractual obligation of a banker to its customer therefore the O.P. is liable for loss caused to the complainant due to mental agony and harassment. Again the amount “set hold” on 12.06.2013 was “Delete Hold” on 05.10.2015 which is very much astonishing and surprising too. It clearly shows the manner the O.P. is operating the account without the knowledge of a customer. That signifies the act or omission committed by the O.P. is illegal, immoral and oppose to public policy and not sustainable in the eye of law. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant prayed to direct the O.P. to pay the lawful compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and litigation cost in the best interest of justice.
3. Upon notice the O.P. filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the complainant is put to strict proof same. The account No. 32504129561 maintained by the complainant was “on hold” from 12.06.2013 due to non compliance of KYC norms as per the RBI guidelines. Subsequently, the said hold was deleted. However, as per records as well as the complaint petition filed by the complainant shows that, no inconvenience was caused to the account holder for operation of his account. Moreover, the full amount lying in the saving bank account No.32504129561 was earning the usual rate of interest from the bank. Soon after compliance of the KYC norms, the hold was lifted. This O.P. operates under the supervision and guidance of the rules framed by RBI and it has obeyed the said instructions only. The allegations made in Para-3, 4 and 5 of the complaint petition are not all true and correct and the allegations made against the Branch Manager are strictly denied by this O.P. On the other hand, the Branch Manager took up the matter with appropriate authorities and intimated the cause to the complainant. The rest of the allegations made in the petition are not all true, correct and denied in toto by this O.P. The allegation made by the complainants regarding his personal effort as alleged in para-3 are false, baseless and denied in toto by this O.P. There is no cause of action for filings this complaint petition and the ground taken in the complaint petition is speculative and imaginary. This O.P. has not cause any loss or mental agony to the complainant because the complainant has never faced any problem while banking with this O.P. Hence this O.P. is not liable to pay any compensation. This petition being a frivolous petition, devoid of any merit, deserves to be dismissed. This complaint is not maintainable due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties and there is no cause of action for filing this complaint. Hence this O.P. prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost in the interest of justice.
4. On the date of hearing of the consumer complaint learned counsel for the complainant and O.P. was present. We heard argument from both sides at length. We perused the complaint petition, written version, written arguments and documents placed on the case record. It reveals from the pass book of the complainant that the pass book was opened by the c complainant on 29.08.2012 in the bank of O.P. The O.P’s plea that Rs.12,726/- was set hold by O.P’s Bank due to non-submission of KYC is not accepted, because KYC is not required in a short period i.e. within ten months of opening of the account. It also reveals from the record that the complainant after updating his pass book on 08.07.2016 in the O.P’s Bank got to know that Rs.12,726/- had been set hold by the O.P’s bank from 12.06.2013 to 5.10.2015 without any prior intimation/notice to the complainant, as such he submitted a written petition to the O.P. for assigning the reason why Rs.12,726/- from his account No. 32504129561 was got held from 12.06.2013 to 5.10.2015. But the O.P. has failed to file any documentary evidence that he has either issued any notice/intimation to the complainant or he has assigned the reason of the said set-hold to the complainant prior to filing of this case.
5. Further, it is pertinent to mention here that the O.P. has issued a certificate to the complainant on 06.09.2017 stating therein that a hold of Rs.12,726/- was put erroneously on the complainant’s account No. 32504129561 on 12.06.2013 which is revealed from the complainants account on 05.10.2015 with SBI. Hence the carelessness of the O.P. for setting hold of any customer’s money in the account is a gross negligence which is not tenable in the eye of law.
6. On foregoing discussion, it is clear evident that the O.P.is negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. It is also pertinent to mention here that due to overact of the O.P. undoubtedly the complainant has sustained mental agony for which he is entitled to get compensation.
As a result the complainant’s case is partly allowed against O.P. on contest and the O.P. is directed to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation for mental agony alongwith Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within one month from receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.
The order is pronounced on this day of 22nd May 2018 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of www.confonet.nic.in for posting in internet and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
