DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.363/2018

Athar Alam

S/o Late Syed Khalil Ahmad

R/o A-33, Alig Residency

Flat No.201, Abdul Fazal Enclave, Part-2, Jamia Nagar

New Delhi

….Complainant

Versus

UCO Bank Ltd

Delhi High Court Branch

Shershah Suri Road, New Delhi

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    : 05.12.2018      

 Date of Order            : 03.12.2024      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present: Complainant in person

                Adv. Sweety Sood for OP.

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       Briefly put, complainant had a single Savings Bank Account till April, 2009 and thereafter had a Joint Account with his mother in UCO Bank Ltd, hereinafter referred to as OP.

2.       It is stated that the complainant opened a joint account with his mother as she had some ancestral property in her name and  some rent amount was being received by her in the joint account.  True copies of all the bank passbooks from year 2009 till April, 2018 are annexed as Annexure C-2.

3.       It is stated that complainant’s mother decided to sell one of her flats at Patna, Bihar in October, 2017 as the complainant was in urgent need of money for upgradation of his house at Delhi. It is further stated that the complainant with the consent of all the family members and buyer, provided details of his savings bank joint account for transfer of token money. Accordingly, the buyer sent the amount in the joint account of the complainant and the same is reflected in the account statement on 02.02.2018. Buyer of the property also asked for the seller’s KYC details with photographs and the same were provided in January, 2018.  Since execution of the sale deed was fixed as per the convenience of the buyer and seller in April, 2018 at Patna, Bihar and the final amount was to be paid by way of demand draft in  favour of the mother of the complainant, details of the joint account with KYC details of the mother of the complainant were provided.

4.       It is next stated that the complainant requested for issuance of fresh passbook in the first week of April, 2018 as the previous one had exhausted. To utter shock and surprise of the complainant, the new passbook was issued on his single name and his mother’s name as a joint account holder had disappeared. The complainant immediately brought this to the notice of OP and also informed the buyer of the flat to wait for some time as the whole process was to be put on hold.

5.       It is further stated that as per the banking rules and regulations, it was found that for removal of the name as a joint account holder a request to close the joint bank account is made by the account holder and some banks ask for mail/written letter of request to close a joint account and for that purpose the identification of a person with valid photo id is required. No such consent or request was ever made by the complainant.

6.       Aggrieved by the circumstances above, complainant prays for direction to OP to pay compensation to the complainant for gross negligence of deficiency of service; to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for mental and physically agony and harassment and pay Rs.22,000/- towards the cost of litigation.

7.       OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that complainant has not approached the commission with clean hands. It is stated that at the time of submission of application for joint account with his mother, complainant did not provide the KYC documents of his mother. It is not only necessary but obligatory to complete the KYC documents as per the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. In the event when the customer is unable to provide the KYC documents, a bank is legally and lawfully not permitted to open a bank account or a joint bank account. It is stated that the complainant despite repeated requests and reminders did not provide the KYC documents as a result of which OP bank rejected the request and application of the complainant for joint account with his mother.

8.       In light of the facts above, it is prayed that complaint be dismissed being false and vexatious.

9.       Complainant has filed the rejoinder stating that complainant’s mother was added as a joint account holder in the year 2009 after completing all formalities and the name of his mother continued almost for 10 years. It is stated that complainant has filed the KYC as and when asked by the OP but OP bank never asked or gave any SMS or written letter to the complainant asking for the KYC details for his mother. It is reiterated that OP bank never rejected the request of joint account rather his mother’s name was removed unexpectedly without any reason. Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of parties. Submission made are heard. Material placed on record is perused.

10.     On perusal of the material placed before us, it is noticed that the complainant had a Savings account in his name in the year 1999 and thereafter from the true copies  of the passbooks placed on record it is seen that in the year 2009 complainant and his mother Smt Rehana Begum became the joint account holders of the same saving bank account. It is further clear from the passbooks that the joint account was converted into a single savings bank account in the year 2018 probably without informing or receiving any request from the primary account holder. Hence, the complaint.

11.     OP’s contention that KYC documents of the joint account holder which are necessary  documents, were not complete does not cut ice with this Commission. We fail to understand that if the documents were not complete why complainants’ request for joint account was not rejected. OP has not filed anything on record to prove that reminders were sent to the complainant to furnish the KYC details. OP cannot be allowed to arbitrarily convert the joint account to a single account. OP bank is held liable for deficiency of service on this account.

12.     Complainants averments regarding the loss incurred by him has not been substantiated. We opine that ends of justice would be met if OP pays Rs 30,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment within 03 months from the date of the order, failing which OP shall pay the above stated amount with interest @4% p.a till realization.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.