Karnataka

StateCommission

A/1288/2018

Corporation Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt.Promodhini - Opp.Party(s)

Satyanarayana

04 Aug 2022

ORDER

04/08/2022

By Sri. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ORDER

Heard Learned advocate for appellant.

          Learned advocate for appellant submitted that Complainant filed complaint before District Commission, Mangalore in C.C.No.150/2017 alleging deficiency in service for not allowing them to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- cash for the purpose of marriage, whereas at the time of withdrawal there was a circular issued by RBI during demonetisation that all banks are directed to pay only Rs.2,50,000/- if there is reason for marriage in support of documents and KYC produced by account holders.  Whereas in this complaint, complainant has not produced any materials to show that there is marriage going to be held in the family of complainant.  Hence, due to non-supply of KYC document and materials to show the marriage to be held, they declined to pay cash amount of Rs.2,50,000/-.  Hence, there is no deficiency in service.  Inspite of that District Commission allowed the complaint and directed this appellant/OP to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, prayed to set aside the order passed by the District Commission by allowing the appeal.

          On going through the certified copy of the impugned order, memorandum of appeal, we noticed that the complainant has made a requisition for withdrawal of amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as there was a marriage to be held on particular day.  The complainant ought to have furnished the documents and KYC to the bank for the purpose of withdrawing cash to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- in demonetisation period.  It is the bank insisted for said documents as per the circular issued by RBI.  It is the bounden duty of the appellant bank to follow the circular issued by RBI.  Accordingly, they insisted for furnishing the document.  The complainant without any reasons had not tendered any documents to show marriage is going to be held and also not tendered any KYC documents.  We found insisting for KYC and related documents not amount to deficiency in service.  District commission made an error in not considering the defence taken by the appellant.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as there is no deficiency in service.  Hence, order passed by District Commission is set aside.  Accordingly, appeal is allowed.  Consequently, complaint is dismissed.

          The amount is deposit is directed to be refunded to the appellant.

 

          Member                          Judicial Member

CV*