Haryana

Karnal

CC/674/2019

Sadhbhawana Hospital - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Randeep Chauhan

15 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 674 of 2019

                                                        Date of instt.30.09.2019

                                                        Date of Decision:15.05.2023

 

Sadhbhawana Hospital, 28, Randhir Colony, behind Randhir Cinema Kunjpura Road, Karnal, through its proprietor Dr. Suresh Kumar Jangra.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     Indusind Bank Ltd. SCO 254, Sector 12, Part-I, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Mr. Gangan, Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Ltd. SCO 254, Sector 12, Part-I, Karnal.

 

3.     Deepak, Employee Indusind Bank Ltd. SCO 254, Sector-12, Part-I, Karnal.

 

4.     Nodal Officer, Indusind Bank Ltd. 4^th floor no.87, Bull Temple Raod, Basavanagudi Banglare-560004.

 

5.     Regional Manager, Indusind Bank, SCO no.53-54, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160017.

                                                                      …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and after amendment Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…..Member

              Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…..Member

                   

Argued by: Shri Randeep Chauhan, counsel for complainant

                   Shri Suraj Kanwar, counsel for the OPs.

 

                    (jaswant singh, president)

ORDER:    

          

                The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant opened a current bank account with the OP no.1 on the continuous pursuance of the then Branch Manager of the OP no.1, consequently a current bank account bearing no.200005536454 was opened in the name of the complainant provided all the related/required documents to the OPs at the time of opening of the bank account. The address verification of the complainant was also made by the then Branch Manager and only after complete verification of the addressee and documents, the abovesaid bank account was opened. The complainant started using the said account as per its requirements and so many times the cheque books were received by the complainant at his abovesaid address. The complainant made every communication with the bank from its abovesaid address and vice versa. On 03.09.2019, the complainant received a SMS on the registered mobile no.9992010601 to the extent that account of the complainant has been freeze. The complainant consequently made a complaint on Toll free number of the bank regarding freezing of his bank account. Thereafter, complainant received another SMS regarding complaint/request no.80162247 for address modification. Again on 04.09.2019 the complainant received a SMS on telephone and emails that his complaint/request no. 80162247 and 80161938 regarding address modification has been resolved. Again on the same day, complainant received another message that RE KYC. OPs sent a SMS on 05.09.2019 to the effect that “Dear Customer, your statement has been dispatched on 2019/09/05 through post vide AWB by post,” which statement has been received by the complainant at the abovesaid address. OPs no.2 and 3 are continuously harassing the complainant by freezing the bank account of the complainant again and again. The complainant sent an email to the Nodal Officer of the bank on 13.09.2019 and made complaint regarding freezing of his account and admission of KYC by the OPs etc. The official/executive of the bank reached to the hospital and verified the facts and address. Thereafter, on 17.09.2019 the complainant received a SMS regarding RE KYC has been resolved.

2.             On 21.09.2019, complainant issued a cheque bearing no.127477 of his abovesaid account in the name of SBI (Income Tax) amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, the said cheque was debited in the account of the complainant but again the amount under the same was credited to the account of the complainant and said cheque was returned to the complainant with the remarks “refer to the drawer” vide  memo dated 23.09.2019, whereas the complainant was having sufficient funds at that time in his account and again on 23.09.2019 the complainant again issued a cheque no.127478 in the name of SBI (Income Tax) amounting to Rs.12330/- but the said cheque was debited to the account of the complainant regarding which the complainant received message on his registered mobile number but at the same time the amount under this cheque was also credited to the account of the complainant and the cheque was also returned to the complainant with remarks “refer to drawer” vide memo dated 24.09.2019, whereas at that time the complainant has having sufficient amount of Rs.3,30,470.11 in his account. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs and requested to non-freeze the account of the complainant, rather OPs no.2 and 3 misbehaved with complainant and demanded unwarranted money for non-freezing the account. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that Reserve Bank of India has made it mandatory for Banks to review and update the KYC details of the Firm/company as per constitution of a periodic basis. These procedural reviews form an integral part of Bank’s compliance policy and ensure adherence to the same. Time and again customers of the banks are duly communicated to get the Re-KYC done for their accounts. It is submitted that time to time intimation was sent to complainant for getting the Re-KYC done but complainant did not have his Re-KYC done due to which account was freeze. Ist intimation through post was sent on 22.09.2018, 2^nd intimation (reminder ) through post was sent on 31.12.2018 and 3^rd intimation (final notice) through post was sent on 26.03.2019. SMS Alert for Re-KYC over registered mobile no.919992010601 were sent on 01.11.2018 and 01.12.2018 which were duly delivered upon complainant. SMS dated 2018-11-01 10.58:13 read as:

“Dear Customer, as per regulatory requirement, request you to imm submit firm KYC documents at any Indusind Bank Branch.”

SMS dated 2018-12-01 11:13:00 read as:

“Dear Customer, as per regulatory requirement, request you to imm submit firm KYC documents at any Indusind Bank Branch.”

Vide notice letter dated 26.03.2019 Bank duly informed complainant that the bank reserves the right to take further action, which may include but not limited to suspend operations in your Account.

Relevant part of letter dated 26.03.2019 read as:

“Pursuant to our previous communications, we would like to inform you that your Re-KYC review has been pending for more than 6 months.

As we have reminded you earlier through our communication channels, the Reserve Bank of India has made it mandatory for Banks to review and update the KYC details of the firm/company as per constitution on a periodic basis.

We would like to notify you that Re-KYC reviews form an integral part of our compliance journey and these checks further entitle you to enjoy uninterrupted banking service. Any non-compliance to the above, may further constrain the bank to deliver these services in a timely manner. In addition, the bank reserves the right to take further action, which may include but not limited to suspend operations in your account.

        We therefore request you to submit your KYC documents within 90 days from the date of this letter.”

Debit freeze marked on account no.200005536454 on 03.09.2019. Upon receipt of Re-KYC documents from complainant bank immediately made the account operational on 23.09.2019.  It is further pleaded that the account of complainant was freeze on 03.09.2019, thereafter, complainant submitted the documents on 04.09.2019, the same wee incomplete as the name of the proprietor was not mentioned on hospital registration certificate and the same was duly conveyed to complainant. The Reserve Bank of India has made it mandatory for Banks to review and update the KYC details of the firm/company as per constitution of a periodic basis. These procedural reviews form an integral part of Bank’s compliance policy and ensure adherence to the same. Time and again customers of the banks are duly communicated to get the Re-KYC done for their accounts. It is further pleaded that time to time intimation was sent to complainant for getting the Re-KYC done but complainant did not do so. It is further pleaded that email was received on 13.09.2019 and the same was closed on 17.09.2019 by communicating the complainant to submit the relevant KYC documents but complainant did not agree to submit the same. It is further pleaded that complainant submitted the relevant documents regarding the Re-KYC on 21.09.2019 and it was conveyed to the complainant that the account will be un-freeze within 48 working hours and the account was un-freeze on 23.09.2019 and the message and email regarding the same was sent to the registered number and mail ID of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence copies of text messages/SMS Ex.C1 to Ex.C8, copies of emails Ex.C9 to Ex.C15, copies of messages/SMS Ex.C16 to Ex.C24, copy of cheque no.127478 Ex.C25, copy of memo dated 23.09.2019 Ex.C26, copy of receipt of Income Tax Ex.C27, copy of cheque no.127477 Ex.C28, copy of memo dated 24.09.2019 Ex.C29, copy of receipt of Income Tax Ex.C30, copy of cheque no.127478 Ex.C31, copy of bank statement Ex.C32 and closed the evidence on 11.06.2021 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagan Bedi, representative-cum-Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of letter dated 22.09.2018 regarding current account-Ist intimation to non-individual Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 31.12.2018 regarding current account-2^nd  intimation to non-individual Ex.OP2, copy of letter dated 22.03.2019 regarding current account-3^rd  intimation to non-individual Ex.OP3, copy of statement of account Ex.OP4, copy of account holder details Ex.OP5, copy of regular licence Ex.OP6, copy of intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income Ta Act, 1961 Ex.OP7, copies of email by OPs to complainant Ex.OP8 to Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 12.07.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant

complainant opened a current bank account with the OP no.1. On 03.09.2019, the complainant received a SMS on his mobile phone to the extent that account of the complainant has been freeze. Complainant submitted all the relevant documents with the OPs as demanded by them to de-freeze of his account. He further argued that on 21.09.2019, complainant issued a cheque amounting to Rs.1,00,000/-, but said cheque was returned to the complainant with the remarks “refer to the drawer” vide  memo dated 23.09.2019, whereas the complainant was having sufficient funds at that time in his account and again on 23.09.2019 the complainant again issued a cheque in the name of SBI (Income Tax) amounting to Rs.12330/- but the same was also returned to the complainant, vide memo dated 24.09.2019 whereas complainant had already submitted all the required documents for Re-KYC and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant submitted the relevant documents regarding the Re-KYC on 21.09.2019 and on receipt of documents, the account of complainant was de-freeze on 23.09.2019 and complainant used the said account continuously till today without any disturbance and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, the complainant had opened a current bank account with the OP no.1. It is also admitted that the said account on 03.09.2019 had been freeze by the OP bank. It is also admitted that said account has been de-freeze on 23.09.2019.

12.           The OPs have taken a plea that the complainant submitted the relevant documents regarding the Re-KYC on 21.09.2019 and on receipt of documents the account of complainant has defreeze on 23.09.2019 and the message and email in this regard was sent to the registered number and mail ID of the complainant.

13.           The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OPs. To prove its version, OPs have placed on file copy of email dated 23.09.2019 Ex.OP12, on perusal of the said email it is mentioned that “KYC updated, signature verified”.  Thus, the account of complainant has been defreezing on 23.09.2019 and the said fact has not been denied by the complainant. After 23.09.2019, complainant is not facing any problem with regard to the said account. The present complaint has been filed on 30.09.2019 whereas OPs have already de-freeze the account of the complainant on 23.09.2019.

14.           Thus, in view of the above, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissal and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:15.05.2023

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                          Member                           Member