Money & Banking

Bank told to pay Rs 5,000 for freezing savings bank account without valid reason

| Updated on February 14, 2011

15. Freezing the savings bank account without any valid reason: The complainant, an ex-employee of the bank, alleged that the saving bank account was unilaterally put on hold by the bank without citing any reason for the same. As a result, a cheque issued by him bounced. The bank submitted that the complainant's account had since been ‘de-freezed' and the charges in respect of the cheque return would be reversed. The bank, however, could not give a convincing reply for freezing the account and did not furnish any documentary evidence as to under whose orders the account was frozen and for what purpose. BO observed that the bank's action of not issuing a notice to the complainant for freezing the account and subsequently dishonouring the cheques issued by him, was not fair and not in accordance with the practice of banking. It tantamount to high handedness and the deficiency in service was thus established. The bank was directed to pay Rs 5,000 as compensation.

16. Loss of cheque from cheque drop box: Complainant X, an SB account holder with bank A, had dropped a cheque for Rs 50,000 drawn on bank B in the cheque drop box of the bank A as advised by the staff.

The proceeds of the cheque in question was collected through clearing by bank C after opening an account purportedly in the name of X which was subsequently withdrawn. Bank A submitted that the list of instruments deposited on the relevant date did not contain the details of the disputed instrument. The collecting bank C stated that it had collected the proceeds of the instrument to the account of its customer through clearing and the account of the customer was opened by adhering to KYC norms prescribed by RBI and also according to the bank's internal guidelines.

After considering the submissions made by all the parties, the BO observed that bank A had contributed to the negligence insofar as not displaying mandatory instructions issued by the RBI on the cheque drop box with regard to the option of dropping the cheque in the box or tendering the instrument at the counter for obtaining acknowledgement. Further, the collecting banker C had not followed the KYC norms in opening the account in the name of the new customer and allowing withdrawal soon after collecting the high value cheque for Rs 50,000, particularly when the account was opened with initial deposit of Rs 200 only 3 days before depositing the cheque. BO, therefore directed both the banks to share the loss suffered by the complainant equally and pay a compensation of Rs 6,000.

17. Wrong credit of cheques sent for collection: The complainant alleged that five cheques amounting to Rs 46,100 deposited with the bank for collection were wrongly credited to a Government account. In spite of repeated assurance given by the bank, the amount was not re-credited for almost 20 months. The bank was directed to credit the amount together with interest at the term deposit rate to the complainant's account for the period he was out of funds.

18. RTGS issues: One complainant had initiated two RTGS remittances from one bank to his loan account with another bank. The debit status was successful but the credit status was ‘returned / unpaid'. Due to technical problem at RBI level, the originating bank transferred the funds on the next working day only and as such, the destination bank charged penal interest in his loan account for the delay in credit to his loan account. As per the terms and conditions applicable to RTGS members, the liability of RTGS operator (RBI) is excluded for system failure. The complaint was closed accordingly.

(Source: Annual Report of the Banking Ombudsmen Scheme)

Published on February 14, 2011

Follow us on Telegram, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and Linkedin. You can also download our Android App or IOS App.

This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

You May Also Like