Freezing Bank Account Without Proper Justification, Karnal District Commission Holds IDFC Bank Liable For Deficiency In Service
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held IDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for freezing the bank account of the Complainant without providing adequate reasons. The bench directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account and pay Rs....
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal (Haryana) bench comprising Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member) and Dr Suman Singh (Member) held IDFC Bank liable for deficiency in services for freezing the bank account of the Complainant without providing adequate reasons. The bench directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account and pay Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses to the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mr. Dipin (“Complainant”) maintained a savings account with the IDFC Bank (“Bank”), holding an approximate amount of Rs. 1,40,631/- (as of the relevant date). While attempting to carry out a transaction on the savings account, the Complainant was surprised to discover that the bank had frozen the account without providing any prior notice. Upon inquiry into the reason behind this action, the Complainant's requests were ignored by the bank. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnal, Haryana (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the bank. The bank didn't appear before the District Commission for the proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant substantiated the existence of a savings account with the bank which was supported by the evidence of the passbook and the statement of account reflecting a balance of Rs. 1,40,631/-. It held that the bank froze his account without proper justification.
Additionally, the District Commission noted that the Complainant, in an attempt to resolve the matter, sent a legal notice to the bank through counsel, but the bank refused to accept it. Further, it held that despite being duly served with the notice of the complaint, the bank failed to appear before the District Commission. This lack of response from the Manager of the bank, who received the notice, stamped the summon, and provided contact information, was held by the District Commission as irresponsible behaviour from a person in a managerial role. Therefore, the District Commission held the bank liable for deficiency in services and unfair trade practices.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the bank to unfreeze the Complainant's savings account. Furthermore, the bank was ordered to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and harassment, along with Rs. 11,000/- for litigation expenses. It noted that the bank has the discretion to recover the awarded amount from the salary of the responsible officer.