Bengaluru District Commission Holds IndusInd Bank Liable For Refusal To Refund Invested Amount Of Rs. 16.16 Lakhs
The Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Ramachandra, M.S. (President), Nandini H Kumbhari (Member) and Shrinidhi (Member) held IndusInd Bank liable for unfair trade practices, negligence, and a breach of their duties as prudent bankers for not refunding investments made by the complainant amounting to Rs 16.16 Lacs...
The Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Ramachandra, M.S. (President), Nandini H Kumbhari (Member) and Shrinidhi (Member) held IndusInd Bank liable for unfair trade practices, negligence, and a breach of their duties as prudent bankers for not refunding investments made by the complainant amounting to Rs 16.16 Lacs through various schemes and accounts in the bank. The bench noted that these investments had been made under the implicit agreement that the bank would provide a higher rate of interest and permit the withdrawal of the principal investment, along with accrued interest, at any time.
Brief Facts:
Sri Shanthappa Raju (“Complainant”) invested Rs. 16,16,780/- in IndusInd Bank (“Bank”), in various schemes and accounts. He alleged that despite repeated requests, the bank refused to refund the invested amount. This led the complainant to issue a legal notice to the bank, and when the bank's response was unsatisfactory, the complainant initiated a consumer complaint in the Bengaluru-IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”).
The complainant argued that he had invested a significant sum of money in the bank across various accounts and schemes. Despite having the assurance of receiving a higher rate of interest and the flexibility to withdraw the principal investment with interest at any time, the complainant faced difficulties when attempting to withdraw their funds. The bank officials allegedly provided unsatisfactory responses, dodged the matter, and provided lame reasons for not refunding the invested amount. The complainant contended that the bank's actions constituted unfair trade practices, negligence, and a failure to fulfil their obligations as prudent bankers.
On the other hand, the bank denied the complaint's allegations and the entire transaction between the complainant and the bank. They argued that the burden of proof should be on the complainant and denied any deficiency in their services. The bank requested the dismissal of the complaint due to these reasons.
Observations by the Commission:
The District Commission noted that despite the terms of the investment agreement which included commitments of higher interest rates and the flexibility to withdraw the principal investment with accrued interest, the bank officials failed to respond satisfactorily to the complainant's requests for withdrawal. Instead, they provided vague reasons and seemed to evade addressing the matter.
The District Commission held that the bank's actions constituted unfair trade practices, negligence, and a clear dereliction of their duties as prudent bankers. The refusal to refund or delay in refunding the invested amount was deemed a clear case of deficient service. Further, it affirmed the complainant's right to receive a refund of their investment and compensation for the inconvenience and suffering caused by the bank's actions.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the bank to refund the invested amount of Rs. 16,16,780/- to the complainant, along with interest at a rate of 10% per annum from the date of the last payment. In addition to the refund, the bank was also instructed to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant, recognizing the deficiency in service, and Rs. 10,000/- as a contribution towards the cost of litigation.
Case Title: Shanthappa Raju vs IndusInd Bank
Case No.: CC/81/2022
Advocate for the Complainant: KV Harish
Advocate for the Opposite Party: Annes Ahamad