Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Harassment Of Customer

Recently, the North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench comprising of Surinder Kumar Sharma (President), Anil Kumar Bamba (Member) and Adarsh Nain (Member) held Canara Bank liable for deficiency of service for failing to update the deposit made by the 76-year-old complainant in his account following the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank. Brief facts of the Case: Shanti Sawroop (“Complainant”), a 76-year-old man, held a savings bank account in Syndicate Bank, located in Nand Nagri, Delhi. On November 24, 2014, he made a deposit of Rs. 200/- into this account. Over time, the Complainant received his gas subsidy in this account, and as of May 20, 2017, the balance in the account stood at Rs. 2,537/-. However, due to the merger of Syndicate Bank with Canara Bank on April 1, 2020, the Complainant's passbook was updated only in December 2021, revealing a total balance of Rs. 414.30/-. It was alleged that Canara Bank failed to update the Rs. 2,537/- deposit made in Syndicate Bank. The Complainant contended that he had never withdrawn Rs. 2,500/-, which the bank alleged, and after several attempts to rectify the issue, he approached the North East Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“District Commission”), seeking the entry of Rs. 2,537/- and compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs. Canara Bank contested the Complainant's allegations, arguing that he had indeed withdrawn Rs. 2,500/- on October 3, 2017. They produced a withdrawal slip bearing the Complainant's signature as evidence to support their claim. The bank accused the Complainant of misusing his old age and misleading both the bank and the District Commission. In light of these allegations, Canara Bank requested that the Complainant's signature be verified and sought compensation for damage to the bank's reputation. Observations by the Commission: The District Commission noted that despite being provided with sufficient time, Canara Bank failed to produce any corroborative evidence or documentation to support their contentions. Consequently, the bank's defence was closed by the District Commission. Given the circumstances and the lack of evidence supporting the bank's position, the District Commission ruled in favour of the Complainant. The District Commission determined that Canara Bank had indeed been deficient in providing satisfactory services to the Complainant, particularly in failing to update the Rs. 2,537/- deposit despite the Complainant's multiple requests. Consequently, the District Commission ordered Canara Bank to rectify the situation by paying the Complainant the sum of Rs. 2,537/- along with interest at a rate of 6% per annum from April 1, 2020, until the amount is fully recovered. Additionally, Canara Bank was directed to compensate the Complainant with Rs. 15,000/- for litigation expenses and harassment, also subject to interest at a rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order until the full recovery of the amount. Case Title: Shanti Sawroop vs Canara Bank Case No.: CC/49/2022 Advocate for the Complainant: None Advocate for the Respondent: None Click HereTo Read The Order

Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Harassment Of Customer

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

Delhi District Consumer Commission Holds Canara Bank Liable For Harassment Of Customer

Smita Singh

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Smita Singh

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers