BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.473 of 2017

Date of Instt. 12.12.2017

Date of Decision: 11.02.2019

Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kalia S/o Sh. Banarsi Dass resident of 44733, CALYPSO CMN FREMONT CAM USA- 94555 through his general attorney of Sh. J. R. Sharma S/o Sh. Megh Nath Sharma resident of 209, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

UCO Bank, Adampur Doaba, District Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. A. K. Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Rajneesh Kapoor, Adv Counsel for OP.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the instant complaint has been filed by Sh. J. R. Sharma being attorney of the complainant Ramesh Kumar Kalia. The complainant along with his brother Manoj Kumar and his sisters Mrs. Santosh Sharma and Smt. Usha Rani is having a joint saving bank account bearing No.0181-0110020289. At the time of opening of the aforesaid saving bank account, instructions were given to the OP that the aforesaid account is to be operated by anyone or survival. Thus as per the instructions given to the OP, the said account can be operated by any one of the account holder.

2. That the complainant approached the OP for the operation of the aforesaid account on 30.10.2017, but the OP had not allowed the complainant to operate the account and have instructed him to bring power of attorney from the other co-holders of the account. Since the account is to be operated by anyone of the joint holder of the account and as such, there was no necessity of asking for any power of attorney and the complainant could singly operate the account and withdraw the amount lying in the aforesaid saving bank account. The complainant has specially come to India from USA for the said purpose i.e. for operating of the account, but the OP has not allowed the complainant to operate the account without any rhyme or reason. The complainant served a notice dated 06.11.2017 through his advocate to the OP allowing him for the operation of aforesaid saving bank account No.01810110020289 and the said notice was given to the OP by hand, which was received by the OP. Even after service of notice, the OP had not allowed the complainant to operate the account.

3. The the OP gave reply to the notice, vide reply dated 08.11.2017 and justifying their act of not allowing the operation of the account in question by the complainant on the ground that the said account has become Dormant due to non-operation of the account as per bank computerized record and as such, all the account holders are required to come personally present along with their identity proof for the making of said account as operational. The said reply to the legal notice is patently wrong and against the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India. As per RBI instructions contained in Master Circular, before declaring the account as Dormant, the bank has to approach the customer and inform them in writing that there was no operation in their account and ascertain the reason for the same. In case the non operation in the account is due to shifting of the customer from the locality, they may be asked to provide details of the new bank accounts to which the balance in the existing account could be transferred. Before declaring the account to be Dormant, a letter is to be written to the customer and in case the letter are returned undelivered, the bank may immediately be put on enquiry to find out the whereabouts of the customers or their legal heirs in case they are deceased. In case the whereabouts of the customers are not traceable, the bank should consider contacting the persons who had introduced the account holder. They would also considered contacting the account holder telephonically in case his telephone number/cell number has been furnished to the bank. In case of non resident accounts, the bank may also contact the account holders through email and obtain their confirmation of the details of the account. On the receipt of letter by the customer if a reply is given by the account holder giving the reasons for not operating the account, the banks should continue classifying the same as an operative account for one year more. As per RBI Guidelines, no letter or email was ever sent by the OP before declaring the account as Dormant. The bank did not try to find out the reasons for not operating the aforesaid account by the complainant or other account holders. Otherwise too, once the complainant has approached for the operation of account, the account should have been made operative by checking the identity of the complainant and there was no necessity of calling all the account holders and checking their identities before making the account operative, since there are instructions to the bank by all the joint holders of the account that the account can be operated by any of the account holder and as such, the account could be made operative by any of the account holder. The OP bank did not make the account as operative, though the complainant gave his identity to the bank at the time of operation of the account in question. It is not out of place to mention here that an account is made Dormant by the bank to check fraud in the operation of the account, but in the present case, the complainant himself had gone to the bank for operation of the account along with his identity, but the branch manager of the OP has refused to allow him to operate the account even after checking his identity and has insisted for the other joint holders to come and operate the account jointly or the complainant should bring the power of attorney from other account holders along with their identity proof. Not allowing the operation of account to the complainant is exactly and really a deficiency in service on the part of the OP, which give rise a cause of action to file the present complaint and accordingly, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OP be directed to allow the complainant to operate the Saving Bank Account bearing No.0810110020289 and further OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant for causing mental and physical harassment and be also directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/-.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who appeared and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable against the OP as a matter of fact and as per bank record, the account No.01810110020289 with UCO Bank Adampur became Dormant on 17.06.2013, due to non-operation of the account as per Bank Computerized Record. It is added here that as stated above the status of the account became Dormant on 17.06.2013 and as per Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India, for Reactivation of Dormant Accounts, written request from the customers/Account holders along with the copies of the ID Proof, Address Proof and Recent Photographs are required and the customer ID has to be made in KYC option in CUMM menu. As such, as per the Account stated above, the following persons are joint holders i.e. Santosh Sharma, Usha Rani, Sh. Ramesh Kumar Kalia and Manoj Kumar Kalia, meaning thereby all the joint holders are required to submit the documents as stated above. Further it is also added here that the account can be operated by Anyone Single or Survivor as per instructions only when it is in the category of Active Status and moreover, presently the banking operations is being managed by computerization system and unless all formalities are not completed in the Computer System, the system does not allow anybody to allow the operation in the account, as such, the complaint against the OP is not maintainable and further averred that the complainant has suppressed the material facts from the Forum, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. On merits, the factum in regard to opening of account is not in dispute rather the OP also admitted that the complainant was not allowed to operate the account being the same has already declared as Dormant. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CA and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. The case of the complainant is not denied by the OP to the extent that the complainant is having a joint saving bank account No.0818-0110020289 with the OP bank. It is also not denied by the OP that the said account was not allowed to operate to the complainant Ramesh Kumar Kalia being reason the same has become Dormant and the factum of declare the account of the complainant as Dormant, came to notice of the complainant only when he served a legal notice to the OP and in its reply, the OP told the complainant that your account has already declared Dormant being reason the same has not been operated for long time. The OP has also took a plea that the complainant was not ready to submit the entire documents relating to all joint holders of the said account and due to that reason, he was not allowed to operate the account being the same is not in active operation rather the account has already been declared to be Dormant. No doubt, when the account has declared as Dormant, the same will become operative after fulfilling all the formalities as envisaged in the circular of the RBI as well as of the concerned bank.

9. We are here not to discuss what are the formalities required for getting a Dormant account in operative one because in the instant complaint, the complainant has made allegations that the account of the complainant has been declared as Dormant by the OP without following the instructions issued by the RBI as well as by the OP itself and in order to prove that the OP has not followed the RBI Instructions, the complainant has produced on the file a copy of the RBI Instructions under the heading 'Unclaimed Deposits/In-operative Accounts in banks', the said instructions are dated 22.08.2008.

10. The similar instructions were also issued by the UCO Bank i.e. OP, the copy of the said instructions is also produced by the counsel for the complainant, though the same is not exhibited, but we are of the opinion that the instructions issued by the government or any bank as well as law is not required to be exhibited, so the same is to be taken into consideration. The said instructions of the UCO Bank having Para No.1 relating to Preamble and Para No.2 show Classification of In-operative accounts, which we like to reproduce as under:-

“All Accounts (Saving Bank and Current) which are not operated upon for a continuous period of over 2 years shall be treated as inoperative (dormant) accounts.

In case of term deposits the 2 year period shall be reckoned after the date of maturity.

For the purpose of classifying an account as 'inoperative' both the type of transactions i.e. “debit” as well as “credit” transactions induced including standing instructions at the instance of customers as well as third party shall be considered. However, the service charges levied by the bank or interest credited by the bank shall not be considered”

and Para No.3 showing how the account to keep an as Operative, we also like to reproduce Para No.3 as well as relevant Para No.4 as under:-

“ A savings as well as current account should be treated as inoperative/dormant if there are no transactions (i.e. no credit or debit other than crediting of periodic interest of debiting of service charges) in the account for over a period of two years.

There may be instances where the customer has given a mandate for crediting the interest on Fixed Deposit account to the Saving Bank account and there are no other operations in the Saving bank account. Since the interest on Fixed Deposit Account is credited to the Saving Bank account as per mandate of the customer, the same should be treated as operative account as long as the interest on fixed deposit account is credited to the Saving bank Account. The Saving Bank account can be treated as inoperative account only after two years from the date of the last credit entry of the interest on Fixed Deposit account and if there are no other operations in the account during the period.”

“In view of the increase in the amount with banks year after year and the inherent risk associated with such deposits, banks should play a more pro-active role in finding the whereabouts of the account holders whose accounts have remained inoperative.

Bank shall make an annual review of accounts in which there are no operations (i.e. no credit or debit other than crediting of periodic interest or debiting of service charges) for more than one year. The bank shall make an endeavor to approach the customers by informing them in writing that there has been no operation in their accounts and ascertain the reasons for the same. In case the non- operation in the account is due to shifting of the customers from the locality, they may be advised to provide the details of the new bank accounts to which the balance in the existing account could be transferred.

If the letters are returned undelivered, the customers shall immediately be put on enquiry to find out their whereabouts or their legal heirs in case they are deceased.

In case the whereabouts of the customers are not traceable, banks shall consider contacting the person who had introduced him/her to the bank. Bank may also consider contacting the employer/or any other person whose details are available with bank's record. In case the customer has furnished his telephone number, the same may be used for contacting him. In case of Non Residential accounts, the bank may also contact the account holders through email and obtain their confirmation of the details of the account.

In case any reply is received from the account holder giving the reasons for not operating the account, bank may continue classifying the same as an operative account for one more year within which period the account holder shall be requested to operate the account. However, in case the account holder still does not operate the same during the extended period, bank shall classify the same as inoperative account after the expiry of the extended period.”

11. Now coming to the issue in dispute whether the OP has followed the instructions of the RBI as enumerated in Ex.C-5 or the instructions issued by the OP Bank itself as envisaged in Para No.4 of the instructions, which already reproduced as above. As per Para No.4, the OP Bank has to take so many precautions before declaring any account as Dormant, but in the instant case, no notice was given to all the co-joint account holder, nor any telephonically message was given prior to declaring the account as Dormant, if so, then it is clearly established that the OP Bank has itself violated its own instructions for the said purpose and also disobeyed the instructions issued by the RBI. If the account of the complainant declared as Dormant without following the procedure as enumerated in the instructions issued by OP Bank itself, then we have no option except to decide that the account of the complainant has been wrongly and illegally declared as Dormant.

12. Further, as per the instructions of the OP Bank itself, if any bank account is not operated upon for a continuous period of two years shall be treated as In-operative (Dormant) accounts, the above lines has been stolen from Para No.2 of the instructions of the OP Bank and if the instructions of the OP Bank is to apply in the present case, then we can again say that the OP Bank has again violated its own terms and conditions because as per saving bank account of the complainant, which is Ex.C-2, the cash amount of Rs.500/- was deposited on 25.04.2012 by the complainant and the period of two years is to be reckoned from the above said deposit date, which comes to 25.04.2014, but the OP has admittedly declared the saving account of the complainant as Dormant on 17.06.2013 as elaborated in Para No.1 of the Preliminary Objections of the reply. So, from this angle, the OP has again illegally, malafidely and without adopting the rule and regulation of its own bank, declared the account of the complainant as Dormant. So, accordingly, the declaring of the account of the complainant as Dormant by the OP is hereby Set-aside and further hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed because the OP has unnecessarily harassed the complainant, who came from abroad just to operate his account, but he was not allowed, if he was informed well within time that his account become Dormant, then he does not come to India from Foreign Country. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant is also entitled for compensation.

13. In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly accepted and OP is directed to allow the complainant to operate the saving bank account bearing No.0810110020289 and further OP, who unnecessarily harassed the complainant and therefore, OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the complainant and further OP is directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. The entire compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

11.02.2019 Member President