FINAL ORDER
Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member.
The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a senior citizen and an account holder of ICICI Bank Ltd., situated at Bagbazar More, Dist.-Hooghly and his Savings Account number is 040501506130, two Fixed Deposit Account number is 040514007675 & 040514007677 and one Recurring Deposit Account No.04052000095.
On 1.9.2015 the O.P. sent a letter to the complainant informing regarding freeze marked in the Savings Account bearing No.040501506130, 04524000095, 040514007677 & 040514007675 wrongly considered the Fixed Deposits and Recurring Deposits A/c. as Savings Bank Accounts.
On 4.2.2016 the complainant sent three applications to the O.P. with a prayer to rescind or cancel illegal arbitrary debit freeze of the Savings Bank A/c. being No.040501506130 along with two Fixed Deposit A/c. bearing No.040514007675 & 040514007677 and one RD Account bearing No.040524000095 and also requested to send the lawful reason of the arbitrary unlawful decision and cancel the order dated 1.9.2015.
Thereafter no steps has been taken by the O.P. to resolve the problem of the complainant and as a result the complainant was not able to use his savings account along with fixed deposit accounts and recurring deposit account for various personal banking needs till to date. The complainant is unhappy with the services of O.P. Bank and compelled to take unsecured loan from the open market at the time of marriage of complainant’s daughter.
Finding no other alternative the complainant compelled to file this case before this Forum for relief with a direction upon the O.P. to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant, to unfreeze all accounts of the complainant, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.10,000/-.
The O.P., ICICI Bank Ltd. contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as alleged against him. The O.P. submits that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed as non-maintainable as the freeze was marked on the fixed deposit of the complainant maintained with the O.P. Bank because the fixed deposit are jointly held with Amit Saha, son of the complainant and ex-employee of the O.P. bank who was directly involved in the fraudulent transaction which have been reported by the O.P. bank to the police and investigations are pending. In an around August, 2015 the O.P. received information regarding certain fraudulent and suspicious transactions involving fraudulent fixed deposit receipt in which the complainant’s son and the O.P.’ bank ex-employee Amit Saha was directly involved. In pursuance of the same investigation a police case being Chandannagore P.S. Case No.168/2015 has been initiated. The accounts maintained by the complainant and his son were frozen as per the internal investigation carried out by the O.P. in an around September, 2015 and investigation with regards to the same is still pending by the police authority and no conclusive direction has been received till date and the O.P. to show his good gesture may remove the freeze from the accounts of the complainant with information to the investigating authorities so that they make necessary steps. O.P. stated the relevant portion of the terms and condition which empowers the O.P. bank to close the account in respect of closure of account. The O.P. further assailed that complainant failed to make out a prima-facie case substantiating any loss caused to the complainant and concealed relevant facts only to mislead the Ld. Forum. So, the instant complaint petition is liable to be rejected with cost.
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but the replica of complaint petition.
The complainant filed brief notes of argument which are taken into consideration for passing final order. The OP also filed written notes of argument.
From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.
ISSUES/POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
1. Whether the Complainant Gopal Saha is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
3. Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.
- Whether the Complainant Gopal Saha is ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?
From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.The complainant herein being the customer of the OP bank maintaining a few accounts in the OP branch, so the opposite party being the service provider is responsible to providethis complainant.
(2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a direction upon the O.P. to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant, to unfreeze all accounts of the complainant, to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation to the complainant for mental pain, agony and harassment and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.10,000/-to the complainant & other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper, ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.
(3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
The case of the complainant is that he being a senior citizen opened savings bank account, fixed deposit and recurring deposit accounts before the O.P. Bank. During the continuation of the accounts he received a letter dated 1.9.2015 from the O.P. Bank and came to learn regarding the debit freeze marked in his bank accounts bearing No.040501506130, 040524000095, 040514007677 and 04051007675 for some suspicious transaction. The complainant through his appeal requested the O.P. to let him inform the lawful reason for the arbitrary unlawful decision was taken in his case and requested to cancel the letter dated 1.9.2015. In spite of getting letter from the complainant the bank authority neither solved the problem of the complainant nor informed the actual lawful reasons of debit freeze as a result the complainant could not handle his savings bank account along with two fixed deposit accounts and one recurring deposit account for his personal need, specially at the time of his daughter’s marriage on 19.2.2016. So, the complainant compelled to take unsecured loan from the open market at the time of daughter’s marriage. The complainant also assailed that after getting several opportunities the O.P. failed to submit any relied documents in support of the same as evidence by affidavit.
In his written argument the O.P. averred that the complaint petition is not maintainable as the freeze was marked on the fixed deposit of the complainant maintained with the O.P. Bank because the fixed deposit are jointly held with Amit Saha, son of the complainant and ex-employee of the O.P. Bank who was rightly involved in fraudulent transactions and the investigations are pending. The accounts maintained by the complainant and his son were frozen as per the internal investigation carried out by the opposite party in an around September, 2015 and other investigation with regards to the same is still pending by the police authorities and no conclusive direction received by this O.P. from investigating Agency i.e. Police of Chandannagore P.S. The O.P. further assailed that as a good gesture he removed the freeze from the accounts of the complainant with information to the investigation authorities so that they may take necessary steps. According to this O.P. the complainant concealed the fact before this Forum that his son is an ex-employee of the O.P. bank and was involved in fraudulent transaction which are subject matter of police investigation and they have every right and power in freezing the accounts given the suspicion of fraudulent fixed deposit receipts issued by the complainant’s son to other customers of the O.P. bank who is a joint holder of the deposits and accounts in question. The O.P. has removed the freeze on accounts of the complainant although the investigation is still pending with due information to the police. Therefore, the cause of action has eroded and instant complaint petition is not maintainable before this Forum.
After perusing the complaint petition, written version, evidence of affidavit of the complainant and written argument of both sides it appears that a few accounts of the complainant and his son freeze by the O.P. bank on suspicion that the son of the complainant Mr. Amit Saha was associated with fraudulent transaction of money. As the O.P. bank has right to freeze accounts so they acted for internal investigation that started in the year2015. The O.P. bank also lodged complaint before Chandannagore P.S. and on the basis of that complaint the concerned P.S. Started P.S. case being No.168/2015 but till date there is no information regarding the progress of police case. The O.P. several time prayed before this Forum to supply the report of police case but they have supplied nothing regarding the status of the said P.S. Case. According to their version for internal investigation the bank authority freezed all the accounts of this complainant and subsequently removed the freeze from the accounts of the complainant. Due to freeze of savings bank account and other fixed deposit accounts & recurring deposit accounts the complainant suffered loss as he compelled to take loan from the market during the marriage of his daughter in the year 2016 during the period of freeze of the accounts. The dispute cropped up in between the parties when the complainant failed to transact his bank accounts lying before this O.P. and O.P. kept the account freezed on the ground of suspicion of fraudulent transaction done by other account holders, who was an ex-employee of O.P. bank. The bank also lodged complaint before the police for investigation and also conducted internal investigation but no fruitful result obtained from those investigations and in the mean time they have removed the freeze from those accounts and demanded that they are not deficient in providing service to their consumers. But from the above observation we may hold that the opposite party on his own motion freezed the accounts of the complainants and after investigation it is found that the complainant is no way associated with any fraudulent & suspicious transactions. But due to nonfunctioning of bank accounts during the period of freeze since 2015 the complainant suffered a lot. The suffering of the complainant caused at the behest of negligence on the part of the opposite party. So the opposite party is deficient in providing service to its consumer for which the complainant compelled to took the recourse of this Forum. The opposite party by filing written version on 01.06.2016 stated that he has removed the freeze as a good gesture in spite of the proceeding is still pending and conclusive direction received from the end of the investigating agency. From the face of the case record it is crystal clear that arbitrary decision to freeze the account of the complainant caused suffering of this complainant and the date of marriage of the complainant falls on the period of freeze so this Forum is in the opinion that act of the OP leads to deficiency of service towards its consumer.
From the above discussion we are in the opinion that the complainant proved his case by producing sufficient documents and argued on the point whether the OP is deficient in providing service and OP is under liability to pay compensation alongwith other reliefs prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint.
4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?
The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party bank is liable to pay compensation for mental pain and agony of the complainant.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being No.41 of 2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the opposite party with a litigation cost of Rs.6,000/-.
The Opposite Party is directed to remove freeze from those accounts immediately if the accounts were not removed freeze within 30 days from the date of this order.
The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony.
All the payments are to be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 30 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.
