Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/248/2018

Mr.Rengachari Parthasarathy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,Canara Bank & others - Opp.Party(s)

K.Moorthy

24 Feb 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :30.08.2010

                                                                    Date of disposal            :24.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.248/2018

 

DATED THIS THURSDAY THE 24^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

Mr.Rengachari Parthasarathy,

S/o.Mr.R.Rengachari,

No.J-502,

Army Welfare Housing Society,

Sector 9 Nerul, Navi Mumbai – 400 706.

                                                                                                     .. Complainant.                                                                               ..Vs..

 

1.Canara Bank,

Rep. by its Branch Manager,

St.Mary’s Road Branch,

No.13, 14 Sundararajan Street,

Chennai – 600 018,

 

2.Canara Bank,

Rep. by its General Manager,

Customer Service Section,

Circle Office, Chennai – 600 018.

 

3. Canara Bank,

Rep. by its Mr.G.K.Bhatt,

Deputy General Manager,

Customer Service Section,

M & CRM Wing, Head Officer,

No.112, JC Road, Bangalore – 560 002.

                                                                                            ..  Opposite parties.

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s.K.Moorthy

Counsel for  opposite parties                    : Mr.K.P.Kiran Rao

 

ORDER

 

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to rectify all the mistakes in the deposits and to  pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- compensation for mental agony  with  cost of this proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.339/2010.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.248/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is an NRF (Non Resident External) deposit holder with the 1^st opposite party who holds both US Dollar and INR Currency deposits. The complainant opened his NRE Account in the year 1998. The complainant used to visit the 1^st opposite party once in a year and collect his account Statement from the branch and also used to give renewal instruction for the deposits held by the bank on his behalf. The complainant shifted his family to Mumbai for personal reason since the year 2004. The 1^st opposite party in January 2008, the complainant an advised by the then Chief Branch Manager Mr.Paul Lose not to continue with the NRF Dollar deposits whenever , since rupee was appreciating against US Dollar. The complainant then wrote a written instructions for the 1^st opposite party, in a piece of paper provided by the bank which also contained instruction for the previous year 2007 requesting the branch to renew Dollar Deposits,  after converting them into INR at the rates prevailing at the time of maturity. There were 21 US Dollar Deposits to be converted into INR, each one of them maturing at different dates throughout the year 2008 – 2009. The accounts statement was not received by his family members in Mumbai. Immediately on 28.05.2008 the complainant personally visited the 1^st opposite party for collecting the Statement of Account. On 04.10.2008 the complainant received an copy of account statement and to it on the very same day an acknowledgement was sent by the complainant thanking for the same although it was belated. Upon receipt of the Account Statement the complainant identified 11 US Dollar Deposits for closure and conversion into INR Deposits. Out of the 11 deposits identified, 8 deposits are to be pre closed immediately on the same day at the prevailing rate and the balance 3 to be converted on maturity since those deposits were to mature shortly in due course. Hence the complainant called up the 1^st opposite party to find out how many deposits were closed. But to the complainants dismay it was informed that the 1^st opposite party had closed only 3 deposits out of 11 under instruction now and for the balance deposits instructed for conversion, the branch stated that all those were already closed and converted into INR deposits in the month of January 08 itself. Immediately the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party that there was no request for closure in January 2008 and enquired  on whose instruction these deposits were closed. Upon  verifying the same, the complainant was shocked to note that all the 8 deposits closed in January 2008 were maturing lately in August/September 2008, but without the customer i.e the complainant’s instruction, were pre closed and converted by the branch unilaterally and without any authority. Further, the complainant also questioned the branch manager how all those 8 deposits said to have been converted into rupee deposits in January 08 are still appearing as Dollar Deposits in the Account Statement sent on 4^th October 2008.  Under such circumstances, the complainant lodged on official complaint on 8^th November 2008 as per the procedure laid down by the Canara Bank Website and also sent the same to the 2^nd opposite party for information. Due to the mistake committed by the branch, there is a financial loss of Rs.2.5 to 3 lakhs to the complainant. On 12^th February 2009 another letter was received  from the 1^st opposite party stating that those 8 deposits under dispute were converted as per customer oral instruction. On February 2009, a complaint was lodged formally to RBI ombudsman on 25^th May 2009 RBI sent a letter to the complainant by courier attaching an Account  opening form for Non Resident Indians said to have been signed by the complainant with instructions for conversion of FCNR Dollar deposits to the 1^st opposite party. Upon checking the said account opening form produced by the 1^st opposite party to RBI, it was found that the needed information was filled up by the respondent on its own on an existing  undated account opening form previously given by the complainant at the time of his NRE Account opening with the branch in October  1998 (prior to his departure to overseas). By this process the opposite parties have committed forgery on a document given in trust by the complainant. RBI ombudsman disposing the complainant’s complaint stating that the issue involves consideration of elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the proceedings before the banking before the banking ombudsman is not appropriate.The complainant till date the 1^st opposite party could not produce any written document from the complainant requesting for pre-closure of those 8 deposits in January 2008 but instead submitted an irrelevant forged document just to dispose of the complaint to RBI  made by the complainant. The opposite parties caused heavy financial loss as well as mental agony to the complainant Hence this complaint.

 

2.WRITTEN VERSION OF 1^st  OPPOSITE  PARTY ADOPTED BY THE 2^nd & 3^rd  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          There is no cause of action for the above complaint and there is no deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant and the same is an abuse of process of law and filed with a view to make an unjust enrichment at the cost of the bank. The complainant in an NRE deposit holder of the opposite parties who used to visit the branch once in a year, collect his account statement and orally give renewal instructions for the Term Deposits held in his name. The customer use to discuss regarding the Rate of Interest given in Dollar deposit and Indian Rupee Deposit which is termed as NRE Term deposit. During 2006, there was a request from the subject customer for premature closure of FCNR (Dollar Deposits) Deposits as there was a sudden and urgent financial obligation to be met by him. The branch advised regarding the loss the customer may incur by premature closure of Deposits in Dollar Currency. In this connection a letter dated 24.04.2006 was received by the branch requesting for premature closure of his FCNR Deposits amounting to USD 30000\ and remitting it back to the credit of third account. As deposit proceeds cannot be credited to third party account as per RBI guidelines and the same was informed, another letter dated 22.05.2006 was received by the branch instructing for premature closure of the deposits to be credited to the account of the Complainant giving the full details of account number and SWIFT code details for making urgent remittance. It is true that the Complainant visited he branch during January 2008, the Complainant had shared his view that he is having dollar deposit for last 10 years and had he taken a decision to convert the dollar into Indian Rupee, he would have gained. Hence, he wanted that all the dollar deposits, which were recently renewed into dollar deposits be converted into Indian Rupee Deposits. The complainant gave specific instructions for converting the 8 dollar deposits into Indian Rupee Deposit and submitted the Account Opening form for the same. The Opposite Party branch as per the specific instruction given by the customer by submitting the fresh account opening form for converting the 8 dollar deposits into Indian Rupee deposits. The complainant  was given statement of account. The instructions for pre-closure of 8 FCNR Deposits were identified by the complainant on the basis of the period it had under gone, that which were renewed recently falling less than six months. Accordingly the branch carried out the complainants instructions, after obtaining fresh account opening from the proposed Indian Rupee deposit. The opposite party branch had provided all the details as requested by the complainant. The complainant and the customer was fully aware of the conversion of the 8 dollar deposits [FCNR Deposits] into Indian Rupee Deposits. The account statement contained details of closed dollar deposit also. By presuming that the closed deposits are still under Dollar Deposit, the Complainant mistakenly gave fresh instructions for premature closure of the already closed dollar deposits into Indian rupee Deposits, as the rupee had weakened during this period. The branch had properly renewed the remaining dollar deposits for this similar period. Hence, customer’s contention that 3 dollar deposits were not renewed is incorrect. There was no fault on the bank and the complainant threatened the bank officials stating that he is an Advocate and knows how to fix the bank officials and threatened drastic action against the bank and its officials. The branch clarified to the complainant that “ as a banker the Opposite Party Bank never wanted to displease the customer”. The opposite parties act on the basis of the instructions given by the customer during by the customer during their personal visit to the branch in Jan 2008. The complainant is a well educated person and the bank is never in the habit of taking signatures in blank forms as falsely alleged by the complainant. The decision of keeping the deposit in Indian Rupee or Foreign Currency is a decision taken by the complainant. The bank has acted purely on the basis of instructions given by the complainant and the forum shopping of complaints are purely to harass the sincere officials of the Bank which may demoralize the working condition of the bank officers in extending service to the general public. There are no merits or bonafides in the complaint and the claim of the complainant is not sustainable either in law or on the facts.      

03. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether  there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether  the opposite parties are liable to rectify all the mistakes in the  

    deposit of the complainant?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation  and cost and other

     relief claimed in the complainant?

4. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

04. POINT NO. 1 to 3

          The complainant is an nonresident external (NRE)  Deposit Holder with the 1^st opposite party. The complainant opened his NRE Account in the year 1998.  The 1^st opposite party is the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Chennai-18, 2^nd opposite party  is the General Manager, Canara Bank, Chennai-18, and 3^rd opposite party is the Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank, Customer Service Section, Bangalore.

          05. The case of the complainant is that in January 2008 Chief  Branch Manager,  advised the complainant not to continue with the NRE dollar deposit instead advice him to convert them into INR Deposit  and therefore the complainant wrote a written instruction to the 1^st opposite party in the year 2007 requesting the branch to renew Dollar Deposits after converting them into INR at the rates prevailing at the time of maturity. But the 1^st opposite party pre-closed the eight deposits and converted into INR deposit on the same day at the prevailing rate and another  three deposits  were not renew by the branch. The further allegation  of the complainant is  that without written instruction from the complainant, the 1^st opposite party pre-closed and converted the deposit unilaterally and thereby the opposite parties committed deficiency in service.

          06. The opposite parties contended  during 2006 there was request from the customer for pre mature closure of Dollar Deposits as there was a sudden and urgent financial obligations to be met by the customer and in this connections a letter dated 24.04.2006 was received by the branch requesting for premature closure amount in to Rs. US dollar 30,000/-. The complainant gave specific instruction for converting the 8 dollar deposit into Indian Rupee deposit and submitted account opening form for the same and their complainant was fully aware of the conversion of the dollar deposit and therefore, the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          07. The complainant filed Ex.A1  copy of account opening form for nonresident Indian.  The complainant submitted account opening form to the 1^st opposite party on 11.01.2008. In which, the complainant  clearly stated about  conversion of FCNR deposit.  The complainant also signed in the account opening form. But the complainant, in his complaint alleged  that the account opening form produced by the 1^st opposite party was created by the opposite party on its own in an existing un dated account opening form previously given by the complainant at the time of account opening in the branch in October 1998. The above allegation of the complainant cannot be accepted because the complainant opened the NRI account in the year 1990 and  Ex.A1 account opening form was dated 11.01.2008 after 10 years. The 1^st opposite party has no chance to keep the unfilled form with signature of the complainant for 10 years. Further there is no necessity for the 1^st opposite party to fill up the form after 10 years.

          08. In this complaint, on the side of complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 has been marked  and on the side of opposite party Ex.B1 to Ex.B23 has been marked. Most of the document are  correspondence between the complainant and 1^st opposite party. The 1^st  opposite party filed B1 written by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 24.04.2006 . In which, the complainant clearly stated about the US dollar deposit total amount into 30,000 US dollar may be transferred  to  another account to meet the urgent financial obligation of the complainant.  The complainant also written another letter Ex.B2  dated 22.05.2006 to the 1^st opposite party to transfer US dollar 30,000 to his another account to meet urgent financial obligation. Therefore, the 1^st  opposite party done all transfers on the basis of the instruction given by the complainant.

          09. Further, the Chief Manager Canara Bank sent a e-mail Ex.B7 dated 02.05.2006 to the complainant  stated as follows:

 “Letter received by us. Some of the deposits are maturing this month. On pre-closure  you  stand to lose heavily. If you still insist we will close the deposits. Madam Radhal has gone to attend some training programme and this week she will not be available at the branch.”

 The said e-mail   clearly stated that the complainant wants to pre-closure his deposit and on other hand the bank advised the complainant the pre-closure  will cause heavy loss to the complainant. Thereafter on the instruction of the complainant the 1^st opposite party pre-closed the 8  dollar deposit and converted into INR deposit. The opposite party, as per the specific instruction given by the complainant by submitting the fresh account opening form dated 11.01.2008, converted the 8 dollar deposit into Indian Rupee Deposit. The 1^st opposite party also given statement of account to the complainant.  The complainant also fully aware of the conversion of the 8 dollar deposit.

          10. The complainant before filing this complaint before this commission  submitted a complaint to the RBI banking ombudsman on the same was  rejected  on 17.09.2009. Thereafter  in the year 2010 the complainant filed this complaint before this commission praying for  an order directing the opposite parties  to rectify all the mistake in the deposit  and pay compensation. Regarding rectifying the mistake in the deposit , the complainant already withdrawn the fixed deposit amount  and therefore, the question of rectifying all the mistakes in the deposit does not arises. Further the complainant prays for an order pass necessary strictures against the official  indulged in forging document . The complainant has not filed any document or proof to show the officials of the bank  forged the documents or created the documents. 

          11. The complainant who is an nonresident Indian opened NRE Account with the 1^st opposite branch deposited US dollar and on his instruction the 1^st opposite party pre-closed his deposit and converted  into INR deposit. The opposite party acted as per the instruction of the complainant. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and complainant is not entitled for compensation and cost and other reliefs  as claimed in the complainant. Further the opposite party not liable to rectify  all the mistaken in the deposit of the complainant.

 

 

 

12. POINT NO :3

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed. No Costs.    

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 24^th  day of February 2022.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                    Account Opening Form

Ex.A2 dated 30.01.2008                   Copy of Deposit Receipt

Ex.A3 dated 30.01.2008                   Copy of Deposit Receipt

Ex.A4 dated Nov 08                Complaint from complainant

Ex.A5 dated 27.12.2008                   Letter from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A6 dated 09.02.2009                   Letter from 2^nd opposite party

Ex.A7 dated 12.02.2009                   Letter from 1^st opposite party

Ex.A8 dated 15.02.2009                   Letter from complainant to 1^st opposite party

Ex.A9 dated 17.02.2009                   Letter from 2^nd opposite party to complainant

Ex.A10 dated 19.02.2009                 Complaint to Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A11 dated 20.02.2009                 Complaint to Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A12 dated 05.03.2009                 Reply from Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A13 dated 25.05.2009                 Letter from Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A14 dated 26.05.2009                 Letter from complainant to Banking Ombudsman

Ex.A15 dated 17.09.2009                 Letter from Banking Ombudsman to complainant

Ex.A16 dated 19.12.2009        Notice sent to the opposite parties with Acknowledgement

Ex.A17 dated 12.02.2010        Notice sent to the opposite parties with acknowledgement

Ex.A18 dated 11.03.2010                 Reply from the opposite parties

Ex.A19 dated Sep 08               E-mail Correspondents between the parties

May 09                                    to May 09.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 letter dated 24.04.2006 received by the opposite party

 

Ex.B2 dated Letter dated 22.05.2006 with envelope received by the opposite party

 

Ex.B3 Passport copy of the complainant

 

Ex.B4  Circular dated 22.05.2006

 

Ex.B5 Letter dated 15.05.2006 sent by the complainant

 

Ex.B6  Letter sent by the opposite party to its circle office dated 10.05.2006

 

Ex.B7 E-mail dated 05.05.2006 received by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B8 E-mail dated 06.05.2006 received by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.B9 NIL

 

Ex.B10 E-mail dated 02.05.2006 series including e-mail dated 03.05.2006 and e-mail dated 26.04.2006

Ex.B11 E-mail dated 25.04.2006

Ex.B12 E-mail dated 24.04.2006

Ex.B13 E-mail dated 15.04.2006

Ex.B14 E-mail dated 13.04.2006 received by the opposite party

Ex.B15 E-mail dated 10.04.2006 received by the opposite party

Ex.B16 E-mail dated 18.04.2006 received by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.B17 E-mail Dated 07.03.2006 sent by 1^st opposite party

Ex.B18 E-mail dated 07.03.2006

Ex.B19 E-mail dated 02.03.2006 received by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.B20 E-mail dated 11.02.2006 received by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.B21 E-mail dated 09.02.2006 sent by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.B22 E-mail dated 01.02.2006 sent by the 1^st opposite party

Ex.B23 Account opening form

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT