STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 197 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 07.06.2012 | Date of Decision | | 05.09.2012 |
Sh. Gurmukh Singh son of S. Sardar Singh resident of House No.255, Sector 35A, Chandigarh. ……Appellant/Complainant. Versus The Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Kachehry Road, Near Ghantagarh, Ludhiana. ....Respondent/Opposite Party. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. Gurmukh Singh, appellant in person. Respondent already exparte. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.), PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant (now appellant). 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant has his Savings Bank Account No.28771, with the Opposite Party (now respondent) since 2001. He was maintaining this account regularly. As on 30.08.2011, a balance of Rs.1,78,764/- was lying in his account. He issued a cheque bearing No.567670 dated 18.08.2011 in the sum of Rs.50,000/- to I.C.I.C.I Bank, Sector 26, Chandigarh for opening his HUF Account. On 04.09.2011, he received a letter from I.C.I.C.I Bank along with the cheque with the remarks that the same was dishonoured, as the Opposite Party had closed his account. When the complainant saw the said memo, he came to know the remarks recorded thereon i.e. “Account blocked”. It was stated that the account of the complainant was blocked by the Opposite Party without giving any sort of prior notice or intimation with regard to the same. It was further stated that even three days earlier to the issue of cheque, he went to the Bank for completion of his Passbook and nobody told him that his account had been blocked. On receipt of memo alongwith the dishonoured cheque, he went to the Opposite Party, to know about the reason of blocking of his account without any notice or intimation. The officials of the Bank admitted that there was a mistake on their behalf, as they could not inform him, prior to the blocking of his account. It was further stated that due to the fault of the Opposite Party, the complainant lost his reputation and prestige and also suffered loss. It was further stated that this act, on the part of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency in rendering service and indulged into unfair trade practice. When the complainant claimed compensation from the Opposite Party, for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to him as also on account of loss of his reputation, it failed to make payment of the same to him. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), directing the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, was filed. 3. The Opposite Party put in appearance and filed its written version, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant was having his account with it. It was, however, stated that the account of the complainant was blocked because of non compliance of formalities in respect of “KYC” (Know Your Customer), which were necessary to be completed by all the customers by 31.03.2010, as per the directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) contained in Circular No.DBOD.AML.BC.18/14.01.001/2002-03 dated 16.08.2002, notice for which was given through an advertisement in the newspaper “The Hindu” dated 03.03.2010. It was further stated that even the notice was put on the notice board, in all the branches of the Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant himself did not observe the rules and regulations and also the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and hence, there was no option with the Opposite Party, than to block his account. It was further stated that there was, thus, neither any deficiency in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, contained in the complaint were denied. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the complainant, in person, and Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, on the ground that since the directives of the Reserve Bank of India, issued vide the aforesaid circular letter, which were duly notified in the newspaper “The Hindu”, were not complied with by the complainant, there was no option with the Opposite Party, than to block his account. It was further held that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, to the complainant by the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. 6. Ultimately, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed as stated above. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed by the appellant/complainant. 8. Notice of the appeal was given to the respondent. The respondent was duly served, but no authorized representative, put in appearance, on its behalf, hence, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.08.2012. 9. We have heard the appellant/complainant, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 10. Admittedly, the complainant has been maintaining his account No.28771 with the Opposite Party since 2001. There is also no dispute about the factum that on 30.08.2011, a sum of Rs.1,78,764/- was balance, lying in the account of the complainant. There is also, no dispute, about the factum that cheque No.567670 dated 18.08.2011 for Rs.50,000/-, was issued by the complainant and the same was dishonoured. The question arises, as to whether, the account of the complainant, could be blocked by the Opposite Party, without issuance of a prior notice to him, with regard to the instructions/guidelines, issued by the Reserve Bank of India, which mandated that the customer was required to update his account by completing certain formalities. According to the Opposite Party, a due notice of KYC (Know Your Customer) guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, was given to all the customers through the newspaper “The Hindu” and as such, it was the duty of the complainant, to comply with the same. Copy of the notice, which was published in the newspaper “The Hindu” is at Page 40 of the District Forum’s file. The portion of this notice, reads as under: - “1. Customers who have already complied with KYC Guidelines. As per RBI guidelines Banks should periodically update customer identification data as (including photograph) for all accounts. Accordingly we have sent out communication to all customers whose updation of KYC documentation and latest photograph is due as per the provisions of the aforementioned guidelines. Customers are hereby requested to update the KYC documentation before 31.03.2010.” 11. The afore-extracted portion of the notice clearly goes to show that according to the Bank, it had sent communication to all the customers, whose updation of KYC documentation and latest photograph was due, as per the provisions of the aforementioned guidelines, and they had been requested to update the KYC documentation before 31.03.2010. It was the definite case of the complainant that he never received any notice from the Bank, that he was required to comply with the aforesaid guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India on or before 31.03.2010. No document was produced by the Opposite Party on record, showing that a notice was sent to the complainant, for complying with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, referred to above. Had the communication been sent to the complainant by the Opposite Party, then, it would have certainly been having a receipt, showing the dispatch of the same, to him. In the absence of any proof, to the effect, that any communication was sent to the complainant, asking him to comply with the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, on or before 31.03.2010, by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that any prior notice was given to him, for the compliance of the said guidelines. The newspaper “The Hindu” is not widely circulated, in this part of the Country. Mere publication of notice, in the said newspaper, could not be said to be sufficient to hold that the complainant was duly informed about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and for compliance thereof by 31.03.2010. The District Forum, did not properly read the notice, which was published in the newspaper “The Hindu”. Had it carefully gone through this notice, it would have come to know that, individual notices to the customers, were required to be sent by the Bank, informing them, about the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and compliance thereof, on or before the stipulated date. Since, in the instant case, no individual notice was sent to the complainant, informing him of the guidelines and compliance of the same, on or before the stipulated date, his account could not be blocked by the Opposite Party, for non compliance of the same. In this case, the complainant was condemned unheard. By blocking the account of the complainant, without any prior notice having been issued to him, with regard to the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and compliance thereof, the Opposite Party was not only deficient, in rendering service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice. 12. On account of blocking of the account of the complainant, in which he had sufficient balance as on 30.08.2011, cheque No.567670 dated 18.08.2011 for Rs.50,000/- issued by him, was dishonoured. Had the complainant been not having sufficient amount, in his account, and in that event, the cheque had been dishonoured, it would have been said that there was no deficiency in rendering service on the part of the Opposite Party. Since, due to the palpable negligence, on the part of the Opposite Party, the account of the complainant was blocked and cheque issued by him stood dishonoured, he suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment as also loss of reputation and prestige. One can very well imagine the plight of a person, who himself, is an Advocate, and who was having sufficient amount, in his account, but despite that, his cheque was dishonoured, and the account was blocked, without any prior notice to him. For mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant, on account of act of omission and commission of the Opposite Party, in our considered opinion, if compensation, in the sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded, that would be fair, reasonable, adequate and commensurate with the facts of the case. 13. No other point, was urged, by the appellant/complainant in person. 14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order of the District Forum, is not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point. The same suffers from illegality and perversity and warrants interference of this Commission. The order impugned, is thus, liable to be set aside. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, is accepted with costs. The order of the District Forum is set aside, and the respondent/Opposite Party is directed, as under: - (i) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant/complainant; (ii) to pay costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5,000/- to the appellant/complainant; 16. The order aforesaid be complied with, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the same failing which, the respondent/Opposite Party shall pay interest @9% per annum, on the amount of compensation mentioned in Clause (i) of Para 15, from the date of filing the complaint, i.e.22.09.2011, until realization, besides costs. 17. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 18. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion. Pronounced. 5th September, 2012. Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Ad
STATE COMMISSION (First Appeal No.197 of 2012) Argued by: Sh. Gurmukh Singh, appellant in person. Respondent already exparte. Dated the 5th day of September, 2012. ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant/complainant, has been accepted with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-, to be paid by the respondent/Opposite Party. (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER | (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER(RETD.)) PRESIDENT | |
Ad
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
