DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

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

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.62/15

Mohit Sareen

C-59, Milan Apartments

West Enclave, Pitampura

New Delhi-110034.                                                         .…Complainant

                                                VERSUS

Yes Bank Ltd.

A-II/33, Alankar Cinema Road

Lajpat Nagar-II

New Delhi-110024.                                                         ….Opposite Party

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Date of Institution:04.03.2015

Date of Order        :26.04.2023

Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi

          Complainant has made a request for passing an award directing Yes Bank Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as OP):-

1. to allow the present complaint and quash the impugned letter dated 10.01.2015.
2. to effect the operation of S/B A/c of the complainant;
3. to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. One Lakh towards precuniary damages, distress, mental agony etc.;
4. to pay a sum of Rs.33,000/- as cost of present proceedings etc.

Brief facts of the case are as under:-

          The complainant was former employee of the OP –Bank from Feb. 2013 to July, 2014 and during the employment, he had a salary account with OP Bank for credit of salary etc. On cession of his employment, his salary account was converted into Saving Account in Oct. 2014.  It was alleged by the complainant that the OP was giving less interest on the amount outstanding in his account whereas the OP Bank was realising more interest on the sum deposited by complainant and lending it to other customers.  On 20.01.2015 the complainant received a letter dated 10.01.2015 informing him that OP Bank would not be able to provide any longer services and same account would be inoperative w.e.f. 10.02.2015 and no reason was given to the complainant.  The complainant made many correspondences to this arbitrary decision of OP.  No reason was given by OP.  The said action of OP had caused grave inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant.  The behaviour of the OP clearly reflects the negligence and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

          OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raised some preliminary objections.  The complainant has not disclosed the material facts.  Had these facts been disclosed, the very maintainability of the said complaint would not have been possible.  The complainant had suppressed material facts from Ld. Consumer Commission.  The complainant had failed to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by OP.  It was further contended by the OP that the said S/B account of complainant was closed with prior notice. The allegation of low interest is baseless, bald averment and does not disclose any detail. 

          It was further stated on behalf of OP that the said account was closed in accordance with rules and regulations.  In accordance with terms & conditions in respect of said account of the complainant,  OP Bank reserves the right to terminate/close the account after giving notice to the customer of 30 days in accordance with terms of 1.45 of T & C. 

The OP further stated that a complaint has also been lodged in Lajpat Nagar Police Station dated 12.01.2015 bearing DD No.438 against the complainant for committing forgery for the purpose of tarnishing the reputation of OP Bank the complaint has been filed here by in the complainant.  Copy of the said complaint is enclosed as Annexure-A.

          It was also stated that during the internal investigation conducted by OP on the basis of complaint received from one of its customers that the complainant had forged signatures of the customers.  Given the grave nature of act, the complaint was lodged with Police Station.  It was also alleged that the complainant had put up this complaint only to pressurise the OP not to go for further action against him.  There appear no truthful purpose but to drag the OP into litigation.  No cause of action arose in favour of OP.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Both the parties filed evidence in affidavit.  OP had filed written submission.  Written Statement is on record so is rejoinder.  The complainant had not been appearing since 29.11.2017.

          The complainant has also not filed written submission despite to pairvi notice was sent for 20.02.2023. Being old cases, it was considered appropriate to conclude the proceedings.  Arguments were addressed by OP.

          This Commission has gone into the entire record available  with it.  The only grievance of the complainant seemed that the S/B A/C of complainant was closed without assigning any cogent reason. Prima facie, it appeared that the OP-Bank being the institution of Public Trust, cannot close the saving account of its customers unless there are grave, serious and fraud played upon the bank.  The complainant did not disclose the reason of discontinuance of his service from the OP Bank.

The OP vide its reply stated that OP’s service were terminated by dint of complaint received from its customer.  On internal enquiry, the OP Bank found that the complainant along with other employee had illegally forged the signatures and mis-sold the Life Insurance Policies to the customers.  To this effect, a complaint was lodged as well with Police Station Lajpat Nagar. It is also noticed that no status report was filed by OP Bank till  the closure of proceedings.

This Commission, believing the contention of the OP feels that it is imperative to take necessary action against the person who was found involved in forging the customers’ signature as per internal enquiry of OP-Bank.  To maintain the public confidence in the Bank, it being a institution of Public Trust the OP had acted in accordance with law.  The complainant had denied vide its replication but it is a bald averment. As discussed earlier, relevance is also placed on the complaint with respect to forgery of signatures of customers by this Commission.  The OP while submitting written arguments, had also supplied the copies of Hon’ble Consumer Commission in the following cases.

(I) Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Vs. Hari Prasad.  R.P. No. 1164 of 2010.

(II) Coastal Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India CC No. 7/2000 SCDRC.

(III) The Akola Janata Vs. Harichand Roopchand Badera 1^st Appeal 1558/2013.

Relying upon the above judgments, and above discussion, this Commission is convinced that the OP is found not short of obligation.  There is no iota of deficiency in service and negligence on the part of OP.  Therefore, the complaint fails and prayer so made is rejected accordingly.

          No orders as to costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.