Harassment by recovery agents

In a complaint about harassment by recovery agents despite payment of all dues and not utilising the card, it was observed that a credit card was issued to the complainant on the basis of the signed application. Subsequently, an add-on card was issued on the complainant's account in another name on the basis of a signed additional add-on card application.

However, the signature on the add-on card application did not even prima facie match the signature of the complainant. The bank submitted that their interim findings were that the add-on card was fraudulently sourced and issued. The bank failed to establish that the add-on card was solicited on behalf of or issued to the complainant and the transactions thereon were initiated at the complainant's behest.

The bank's action of attempting to coerce the complainant to accept liability for fraudulent transactions put through his account as a result of the bank's lack of due diligence and operational weakness constituted unfair treatment to the customer. The bank was advised to reverse all outstanding and, considering the age and trauma of the complainant and the nature of deficiency, the bank was advised to pay the complainant a monetary compensation of Rs 40,000.

Failure of bank to repay maturity proceeds of a fixed deposit: In a complaint about delay in credit of maturity proceeds of the deposit, the bank officials had explained that the record of the fixed deposit certificate issued in the name of the complainant was not available in the bank's CBS system. It appeared from the old records that the account was entered from the manual system to the computer system and marked ?closed?.

It was observed from the correspondences that for more than a year, the queries and replies from the Zonal Office and the branch were perfunctory, without any effective proposal to solve the problem of the depositor. In view of a clear case of deficiency in customer service by the bank branch, the Banking Ombudsman passed an award that the full maturity value together with interest on the amount at 9.5 per cent till the date of payment of the amount, should be paid to the depositor and further Rs 10,000 towards the loss suffered by the complainant.

No response to queries by the bank: The complainant had defaulted on four EMIs of the home loan. The bank sanctioned additional loan of Rs 60,000 to enable him tide over difficulties and regularise his home loan. The complainant deposited Rs 50,000 in his loan account. However this entry did not reflect in any of his accounts and the bank started sending notices to him to regularise his home loan account.

It was observed that the bank had no practice of indicating the mode of accepting deposit whether by cash/cheque and the counterfoils did not bear a date stamp and signature of cashier for receiving cash. The bank was advised to conduct an internal investigation and report back. Since there was no response from the bank even after a lapse of more than a month an award was passed directing the bank to pay Rs 55,000 to the complainant towards his housing loan account and compensation of Rs 5,000 towards filing and follow-up of the complaint.

(Source: Annual report of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.)

COMMENT NOW