Date of Filing : 02.01. 2013
Date of Order : 22.04.2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)
2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L., : PRESIDENT
TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B., : MEMBER I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO.91/2013
FRIDAY THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL 2016
Malavasudevan,
No.117/88, Gopalan Street,
Vasudevan Nagar,
Jafferkhanpet,
Chennai 600 083
Now at
No.305, Sai Mythri Comforts Appt.,
First Main, Vijaya Bank Layout,
Arekare,
Bangalore 560 076. ..Complainant
..Vs..
1. The Senior Manager,
Indian Bank, Jafferkhapet Branch,
119/1 Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Jafferkhanpet,
Chennai 600 083.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director,
Indian Bank,
254 – 260 Avvai Shanmugam Salai,
Roypettah, Chennai 600 014. ..Opposite parties.
For the Complainant : M/s. M.V. Murali
For the Opposite party-1 : M/s. Lavanya Shankar
For the opposite party-2 : M/s. Rajendran Raghavan
Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complaint is filed seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint.
ORDER
THIRU. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN :: MEMBER-II
1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:
The complainant submit that she issued a cheque for the withdrawal of cash from her account where she was holding the savings bank account, with Indian Bank Jafferkhanpet Branch, Chennai 83, cheque drawn on her husband’s name. When he had presented the said cheque at the concerned bank, it was not honoured by the said bank, stating that it was a dormant account / in operative account. Hence they directed the complainant’s husband to comply with KYC norms from the account holder. The complainant submitted that a letter from ICICI bank which states that they will be honoring the cheques if any issued even though the account is made as “dormant”. As such the complainant construed the act of the opposite parties, amount to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant. As such the complainant sought for claim of Rs.60,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the complaint. Hence the complaint.
Written version opposite party is as follows:
2. It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein. The complainant had not been operating the account for a long and the account had become adornment / inoperative account. Inoperative accounts would be permitted to be operated, upon only after due authorization by the account holder and by verification of the details of the customer as per KYC Norms. Since the account of the complainant was an “inoperative” account, the bearer cheque for withdrawal presented at the counter of opposite party was not allowed and the presenter of the bearer cheque was advised to inform the complainant / account holder to furnish the details and also issues a due authorization for operation of the account. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of the complainant is also a bank officer, and as such, he is aware of the operations of dormant account and that by the systems and procedures evolved for such a dormant/inoperative accounts a revalidation of the account to operate has to be made by the account holder and only then, it would be appropriate to allow further transactions. This is being a practice upon the directions of the RBI, which directions are towards the benefit of the inoperative account holder, without knowledge of account holder there could be possibilities mishandling as envisaged by RBI of fraud withdrawals. So opposite party denied with one satisfying KYC a norm, withdrawing was not permitted. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore this compliant deserve to be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on the side of the complainant. Proof affidavit of Opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?.
5. POINTS 1 & 2 :
Perused the complaint filed by the complainant and his proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked on the side of the complainant. Written version and proof affidavit filed by the opposite parties and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite parties and also considered the both side arguments.
6. The complainant had issued a cheque for the withdrawal from her account where she was holding the savings bank account with Indian Bank Jafferkhanpet Branch, Chennai 83, cheque drawn on her husband name when he had presented the cheque at the concerned bank it was not honoured by the said bank stating that it was a dormant account / in operative account. Hence they directed the complainant’s husband to comply with KYC norms from the account holder to effect payment. Though the account holder was having Rs.13,000.55 in her account the cheque issued for withdrawal is only Rs.6,000/-, the said account was inoperative since 31.1.2011. The bankers had directed the complainant to comply with production of I.D proof and address proof to enable the operating branch to make the dormant account into operational account. Wherein the complainant instead of providing the documents requested for complying the KYC norms, he had send the same cheque for collection and deposited in IOB Bank on 24.12.2011. Wherein it has been returned to the complainant with a marking of refer to the drawer. (Ex.A3, Ex.A4 & Ex.A5). The complainant husband reiterated and stated that he was an x-employee of IOB were he knows the procedure and asking the denial of honouring the cheque stating that when there is sufficient balance, the concerned officer in station who is passing the payment could have taken initiative in honouring the cheque, when the banker and accepted to issue a duplicate pass book to the same bearer of the cheque, they could have honoured the payment also.
7. Moreover the complainant states that she was residing in Bangalore and could not be stepped down to Chennai for getting this payment. Hence she had issued a cheque through her husband. Lot of communications were exchanged with the banker by the complainant, resulted in increased tension which could have been avoided at the initial stage itself. Aggrieved by this, the complainant moved her grievance through International Consumer Rights Protection counsel by issuing the notice under COPRA 1986, Sec.2 (1)( r), there is a deficiency of service and in violating the master circular of RBI No.UBD BPD (PCB) MC NO.13/13.01.000/2009-10 dated 1.7.2009 demanding Rs.10,000/- as compensation (Ex.A11). The complainant also produced the said master circular of RBI u/s 6, it is mentioned that for the purpose of classifying an account as inoperative both the type of transactions i.e. debit as well as credit transitions induce at the instance of customers as well as 3rd party should be considered. However the charges levied by the bank or the interest credited by the bank should not be considered. In this case the complainant was having a credit balance of Rs.7106.06 as on 23.12.2011. The cheque presented by the complainant’s husband was Rs.6,000/- dated 21.12.2011.
8. The mentioned RBI circular under para-8 it is stated that
operation in such accounts may be allowed after due diligence as per risk category of the customer. Due diligence would mean ensuring genuineness of the transaction verification of the signature and identity etc. However it has to be ensured that the customer is not inconvenienced as a result of extra care taken by the bank”
The complainant also referred ICICI bank letter, dated 16.1.2011 under Ex.A14 stating that “In the event of an account get classified as “Dormant”, cheques issued by you will be honoured, but we will not be able to process the request of issue of fresh cheque book, renewal of ATM, debit card change of address, cash withdrawal at ATM, transactions through Internet banking relying upon this letter the complainant claimed the opposite party should also follow the same procedure in handling grievance of the account holders.”
9. The opposite party denied the allegations preferred by the complainant that the bankers of the opposite party had acted based on the directives of their head office circular MAIN / DEP-33/2011-12 dated 25.11.2011, under Ex.B1 claiming the guide lines given for inoperative accounts by their head office adhered to. The salient features of inoperative module are elicited clearly how the operating branches should behave and verify the transactions of the dormant accounts. An inoperative account can be made operative only in home branch by using the screen Rs.8000/- provided there should be a customer induced transaction within the last two years.
10. The Leaned counsel of the opposite party, in his oral argument contended that the said account of the complainant was a non performing account (NPA) and the opposite party had given intimation to the complainant to comply the KYC norms when the complainant representative /husband approached the opposite party for issuance of duplicate pass book. Moreover para-3 of the complainant it is stated that the complainant was not in Chennai and residing in Bangalore for more than two years. It is further stated that the complainant’s husband was x-employee was Indian Overseas bank, he should have aware of the rules and regulation of bank when an account become dormant one and he could have given the KYC details sought by the opposite party when he came for the withdrawal of amount from his wife’s S.B. account. The learned counsel has pointed out that there should be two things to be observed whether there is any deficiency is there or any damages are there to the complainant. The learned counsel states that when the complainant is not residing in Chennai, it is due diligent of the opposite party to comply the KYC norms which was already communicated to the complainant by mail to produce address proof and identity proof to honour the payment. Instead of producing the required documents call for by the complainant, had submitted the cheque through IOB for collection which was returned by the opposite party by making a comment “refer to the drawee” and not stated insufficient funds. By referring RBI circular due diligent means, “it may be allowed not should be allowed”. The learned counsel of the opposite party controls that the credential of the account holder are to be looked into before passing a payment which is the duty of the opposite party, hence the nonpayment of the cheque is not a deficiency because the request preferred by the opposite party has not been honoured by the complainant and by venture of this, there is no damages were occurred to the complainant and pleads the honorable forum to dismiss the complaint.
11. Pursuant of the proof affidavit, written version and oral argument of both the parties to the complaint we feel that the opposite party had taken all precautionary measure in safeguarding the account of the account holder if the complainant would have honored by submitting the relevant documents called by the opposite party the problems could be avoided. Moreover on scrutiny of the documents filed by both the parties, we found that it is true that the said account was inoperative and became dormant. There is no justification on the part of the complainant without making any operation in the account and making the dormant account into an operational account. We found there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is the duty of the complainant to comply with the statutory norms but failed to do so. Hence the complaint stands dismissed, no cost.
In the result the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated directly by the Member-II to the Assistant, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of April 2016.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents :
Ex.A1- - Copy of Cheque tendered across counter and in clearing.
Ex.A2- - Copy of Debit note of the payee banker.
Ex.A3- - Copy of Return memo of the paying banker.
Ex.A4- - Copy of Passbook showing cheque return charges debited.
Ex.A5- - Copy of online complaint lodged.
Ex.A6- - Copy of reply mail to customer complaint.
Ex.A7- - Copy of mail sent to chairman and Managing director.
Ex.A8- - Copy of mail by Indian bank Jafferkhanpet branch.
Ex.A9- - Copy of reply mail sent to above letter of Jafferkhanpet branch.
Ex.A10- - Copy of reply mail for the call received from head office.
Ex.A11- - Copy of mail sent by ICRPC Mumbai to CMD of the bank.
Ex.A12- - Copy of RBI circular for the conduct of dormant account.
Ex.A13- - Copy of letter indicating how banks are flouting RBI norms.
Ex.A14- - Copy of letter from ICICI bank which shows how they
honour cheque issued to dormant account.
Opposite party’s side documents:
Ex.B1- 25.11.2011 - Copy of Head office circular Dep.33/2011-12.
Ex.B2- 3.12.2011 - Copy of letter of the complainant.
Ex.B3- 25.2.2012 - Copy of letter of bank to the complainant.
Ex.B4- 20.2.2012 - Copy of letter of H.O. to the Branch.
MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
