Premature Closure Of Fixed Deposit, Failure To Provide Resolution, Udupi District Commission Holds Bank Of Baroda Liable
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Bank of Baroda liable for deficiency in service for prematurely closing the fixed deposit of an NRI customer and erroneously adjusting it against another customer's loan account. Brief Facts: The Complainant, in 1993, opened an NRI...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi (Karnataka) bench of Sunil T. Masaraddi (President) and Sujata B. Koralli (Member) held Bank of Baroda liable for deficiency in service for prematurely closing the fixed deposit of an NRI customer and erroneously adjusting it against another customer's loan account.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant, in 1993, opened an NRI account with the branch of the Bank of Baroda, subsequently initiating a fixed deposit in 1996. This deposit was renewed regularly until 2019. On April 26, 2018, the fixed deposit was renewed again with maturity set for April 26, 2019. However, upon seeking renewal, the Complainant's sister was informed that the deposit was prematurely closed, despite the Complainant possessing the original deposit receipt. The Complainant alleged that despite assurances from the bank to investigate, no satisfactory resolution was provided.
Further, the Complainant stated that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, he was unable to travel to India until April 2022. Upon visiting, he requested the return of the fixed deposit amount. Follow-ups revealed that the deposit was erroneously adjusted against another customer's loan account by the bank. Despite repeated requests, this error remained unresolved.
Moreover, the bank advised the Complainant to submit a written complaint. However, the bank didn't provide a response to the complaint. Despite efforts since 2019 and intervention from the Human Rights Protection Foundation (HRPF) in Udupi, the bank did not respond to communications from the HRPF. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Udupi, Karnataka (“District Commission”) against the bank.
The bank didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
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 possession of the bank. The District Commission expressed deep concern over the fact that despite the Complainant's persistent efforts since 2019 to resolve the issue amicably and through legal channels, the bank failed to address the grievance. This prolonged inaction caused significant distress and mental anguish for the Complainant. Therefore, the District Commission held the bank liable for deficiency in services.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the bank 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 opposite party's negligence, the bank was directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him along with Rs.10,000/- for the litigation expenses.
Case Title: Melwin D'Mello vs Bank of Baroda
Case Number: 38/2024
Decided on: 31/05/2024