The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench, consisting of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member), recently held Bank of Baroda liable for deficiency in service. The bank was found to have prematurely closed the fixed deposit of an NRI customer and erroneously adjusted it against another customer’s loan account.
Background of the Case
The complainant opened an NRI account with the Bank of Baroda in 1993 and subsequently initiated a fixed deposit in 1996. The deposit was regularly renewed until 2019. However, on April 26, 2018, when the fixed deposit was due for renewal, the complainant’s sister was informed that the deposit had been prematurely closed, despite the complainant possessing the original deposit receipt. The bank assured the complainant that they would investigate the matter, but no satisfactory resolution was provided.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant was unable to travel to India until April 2022. Upon visiting, the complainant requested the return of the fixed deposit amount. It was discovered through follow-ups that the deposit had been erroneously adjusted against another customer’s loan account by the bank. Despite repeated requests, the bank failed to rectify this error.
The bank advised the complainant to submit a written complaint, but they did not provide a response to the complaint. Despite the complainant’s efforts since 2019 and the intervention of the Human Rights Protection Foundation (HRPF) in Udupi, the bank did not respond to communications from the HRPF. As a result, the complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi, Karnataka against the bank.
Decision of the District Commission
The bank did not appear before the District Commission for the proceedings. The District Commission noted that the possession of the fixed deposit receipt by the complainant strongly indicated that the deposited amount was not withdrawn and remained in the bank’s possession. The District Commission expressed deep concern over the bank’s prolonged inaction and failure to address the complainant’s grievance, causing significant distress and mental anguish. Therefore, the District Commission held the bank liable for deficiency in services.
Remedies Ordered by the District Commission
As a result of the District Commission’s decision, the bank was directed to refund the maturity amount of Rs.1,54,795/- to the complainant. Additionally, considering the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the bank’s negligence, the bank was ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant, along with Rs.10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Bank manager RM zonal manager be charge sheeted
Because of criminal negligence and in different attitude
Penalty be recovered from salary
Yes,all should be punished ,as such instances effects public sentiments ,against bank.For no fault of customers ,they are subjected to harassment.
Can the bank with out consent take the money lying in the savings account of the bank .