Delhi District Court
Suit No.: 7769/16 vs Indian Bank on 10 April, 2018
IN THE COURT OF MS. ANU AGGARWAL,
JSCCASCJGJ (SHAHDARA),
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI.
Suit No.: 7769/16
Smt. Jyoti
D/o Sh. Preet Singh
(Through her SPA holder)
Sh. Preet Singh
S/o Late Sh. Khajan Singh
R/o 29/29C, Gali No.12,
Vishwas Nagar, Shahdara,
Delhi 110032.
...... Plaintiff
versus
1. Indian Bank
Through its Branch Manager
Branch Office : C42, Main Road,
Krishna Nagar, Delhi 110051.
2. Sh. Ajay Hada
S/o Sh. Moll Chand Hada
R/o H. No. 3076, Katra Gokul Shah,
Sitaram Bazar, Delhi 110006.
......Defendants
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 27.08.2014
DATE OF RESERVING THE ORDER : 01.03.2018
DATE OF DECISION : 10.04.2018
DECISION : Decreed
Suit for mandatory injunction
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.1 of13
JUDGMENT:
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff through SPA for mandatory injunction to direct defendant no. 1 i.e. Indian Bank to allow the plaintiff to operate her bank account no. 864817010 and to withdraw a sum of Rs.93,935.78 alongwith 12% interest per annum.
2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are as under:
(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that she opened a bank account bearing no. 864817010 with defendant no. 1 bank. The said bank account was in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant no.2, who was husband of plaintiff.
(b) It is further stated that plaintiff filed divorce petition against defendant no. 2 and she was granted divorce on 16.08.2013 by the court of Ld. ADJ, Sh. Anurag Sain, KKD Court, Delhi. It is stated that since defendant no. 2 is no more her husband, he has no concern with the said bank account.
(c) It is stated that on 10.07.2013, plaintiff approached the defendant no. 1 for the purpose of withdrawal from her bank account, but she came to know that the bank account has been closed by defendant no. 1 without any prior intimation and consent of plaintiff.
(d) It is stated that plaintiff visited the defendant no. 1 on several occasions to know the reason of closure of her bank account but no reasonable explanation was given by officials of defendant no.
1. It is stated that a legal notice dated 21.07.2014 was served by the Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.2 of13 plaintiff to defendant no. 1 and 2 but no action was taken by defendant no. 1. Hence, present suit.
3. The defendant no.2 was served by publication but as none appeared for defendant no.2, he was proceeded exparte vide order dated 10.08.2016.
4. The defendant no.1 by way of written statement has taken following objections :
(a) It is alleged that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and has made false averments. It is stated that the alleged bank account, which is in the joint name of plaintiff and defendant no. 2, has not been closed. The said bank account is in inoperative state for the last two years as no transaction took place in the said bank account for over two years. The bank duly informed both the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 that the account is in inoperative state and requested them to submit a duly filled 'KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER' (KYC) Form as per RBI and Government of India Guidelines in order to reoperate the said account.
(b) It is stated that the defendant no. 1 is bound by RBI and Government of India guidelines and requires a valid KYC from both the account holders before it can allow either of the parties to operate the said bank account. It is stated that the plaintiff instead of submitting a valid KYC Form alongwith defendant no. 2 has filed the present suit just to harass the bank officials.
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.3 of13
(c) It is further stated that the plaintiff and defendant no. 2 be directed to file proper KYC Form with the defendant no. 1, in order to reoperate the said account.
5. Replication was filed by the plaintiff to the Written Statement of defendant no. 1 wherein all the averments of the defendant no. 1 were denied and contents of the plaint were reiterated. It is further stated that defendant no. 1 can make the account operative by taking their valid legal charges.
6. On the basis of pleadings of the parties vide order dated 30.11.2016, following issues were framed : ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer (a) of the prayer clause? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest,if yes, for which period and at what rate ? OPP
3. Relief
7. The plaintiff has examined following witnesses in her evidence:
(a) The plaintiff has examined Sh. Preet Singh SPA holder of plaintiff as PW1. He has tendered her affidavit as PW1/A and has relied upon following documents :
1. Special Power of Attorney as Ex. PW1/1.
2. Postal receipts as Ex. PW1/2 (colly).
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.4 of13
3. Legal Notice dated 19.07.2014 as Ex. PW1/3.
4. Copy of passbook as Ex. PW1/4 (OSR).
5. Judgment and decree order by the court of Sh. Anurag Sain, Ld. ADJ01, KKD Courts, Delhi dated 16.08.2013 as Ex. PW1/5.
(b) PW2 Smt. Jyoti has tendered her affidavit Ex. PW2/A. She has relied upon the same documents as tendered by PW1.
8. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff in her evidence and PE was closed vide order dated 19.01.2018.
9. The defendant no. 1 did not examine any witness and opportunity of the defendant no. 1 to lead defendant evidence was closed vide order dated 22.02.2018.
10. I have heard the arguments and gone through the record.
11. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1 : Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in prayer (a) of the prayer clause? OPP
12. It is admitted by the defendant no. 1 that plaintiff alongwith her husband had opened a joint account with the plaintiff bank. It is also admitted that plaintiff was not allowed to operate the alleged bank account. It is the contention of the defendant no. 1 that no transaction took place in the alleged bank account for over two Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.5 of13 years and the account was put in 'Inoperative' Status. It is further contention of the defendant no. 1 that defendant no. 1 informed the plaintiff and her husband regarding the status of the alleged account as 'inoperative' and requested them to submit the duly filled 'Know Your Customer' (KYC) as per the RBI and Government of India guidelines. Once it is admitted by the defendant no. 1 that plaintiff alongwith her husband has joint account with them and the plaintiff has not been allowed to operate the account, the onus shifts upon the defendant no. 1 to prove that the account was infact became 'inoperative' and that they informed the plaintiff about the requirement of KYC as per RBI Guidelines. However, the defendant no. 1 has not placed on record any such RBI Guidelines. I have gone through the RBI Guidelines regarding unclaimed deposits/inoperative accounts in the bank issued vide Master Circular UBD(PCB) M.C. No: 13 /13.01.000/201112 dated July 1, 2014. The relevant portion of the circular regarding inoperative account is reproduced as under: Unclaimed Deposits / Inoperative Accounts in banks 24.1 Section 26 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 provides, inter alia, that every banking company shall, within 30 days after close of each calendar year submit a return in the prescribed form and manner to the Reserve Bank of India as at the end of each calendar year (i.e., 31st December) of all accounts in India which have not been operated upon for 10 years.
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.6 of13 24.2 In view of the increase in the amount of the unclaimed deposits with banks year after year and the inherent risk associated with such deposits, banks should play a more proactive role in finding the whereabouts of the account holders whose accounts have remained inoperative. Further several complaints were received in respect of difficulties faced by the customers on account of their accounts having been classified as inoperative. Moreover, there is a feeling that banks are undeservedly enjoying the unclaimed deposits, while paying no interest on it. Keeping these factors in view, the instructions issued by RBI have been reviewed and banks are advised to follow the instructions detailed below while dealing with inoperative accounts:
(i) Banks should make an annual review of accounts in which there are no operations (i.e., no credit or debit other than crediting of periodic interest or debiting of service charges) for more than one year. The banks may approach the customers and inform them in writing that there has been no operation in their accounts and ascertain the reasons for the same. In case the non operation in the account is due to shifting of the customers from the locality, they may be asked to provide the details of the new bank accounts to which the balance Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.7 of13 in the existing account could be transferred.
(ii) If the letters are returned undelivered, they may immediately be put on enquiry to find out the whereabouts of customers or their legal heirs in case they are deceased.
(iii) In case the whereabouts of the customers are not traceable, banks should consider contacting the persons who had introduced the account holder. They could also consider contacting the employer / or any other person whose details are available with them. They could also consider contacting the account holder telephonically in case his Telephone number / Cell number has been furnished to the bank. In case of Non Resident accounts, the bank may also contact the account holders through e mail and obtain their confirmation of the details of the account.
(iv) A savings as well as current account should be treated as inoperative / dormant if there are no transactions in the account for over a period of two years.
(v) In case any reply is given by the account holder giving the reasons for not operating the account, banks should continue classifying the same as an operative Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.8 of13 account for one more year within which period the account holder may be requested to operate the account.
However, in case the account holder still does not operate the same during the extended period, banks should classify the same as inoperative account after the expiry of the extended period.
(vi) For the purpose of classifying an account as 'inoperative' both the type of transactions i.e., debit as well as credit transactions induced at the instance of customers as well as third party should be considered. However, the service charges levied by the bank or interest credited by the bank should not be considered.
(vii) There may be instances where the customer has given a mandate for crediting the interest on Fixed Deposit account and/or crediting dividend on shares to the Savings Bank account and there are no other operations in the Savings Bank account. Since the interest on Fixed Deposit account and/or dividend on shares is credited to the Savings Bank accounts as per the mandate of the customer, the same should be treated as a customer induced transaction. As such, the account should be treated as operative account as long as the interest on Fixed Deposit account and/or dividend on shares is credited to the Savings Bank account. The Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.9 of13 Savings Bank account can be treated as inoperative account only after two years from the date of the last credit entry of the interest on Fixed Deposit account and/or dividend on shares, whichever is later, provided there is no other customer induced transaction.
(viii) Further, the segregation of the inoperative accounts is from the point of view of reducing risk of frauds etc. However, the customer should not be inconvenienced in any way, just because his account has been rendered inoperative. The classification is there only to bring to the attention of dealing staff, the increased risk in the account. The transaction may be monitored at a higher level both from the point of view of preventing fraud and making a Suspicious Transactions Report. However, the entire process should remain unnoticeable by the customer.
(ix) Operation in such accounts may be allowed after due diligence as per risk category of the customer. Due diligence would mean ensuring genuineness of the transaction, verification of the signature and identity etc. However, it has to be ensured that the customer is not inconvenienced as a result of extra care taken by the bank.
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.10 of13
(x) There should not be any charge for activation of inoperative account.
(xi) Banks are also advised to ensure that the amounts lying in inoperative accounts ledger are properly audited by the internal auditors / statutory auditors of the bank.
(xii) Interest on savings bank accounts should be credited on regular basis whether the account is operative or not. If a Fixed Deposit Receipt matures and proceeds are unpaid, the amount left unclaimed with the bank will attract savings bank rate of interest.
13. Therefore, the defendant no. 1 could have declared the alleged account as inoperative only if they could show that there was no transaction in the alleged account for the period of two years.
14. Though the defendant no. 1 has not led any evidence to prove the same but defendant no. 1 has filed one statement of account of the above said alleged account for the period from 27.11.2009 to 31.01.2018. The perusal of the said statement of account reflects that two cheques bearing no. 128569 and 128788 of Rs.55,507/ and Rs.37,094.54 was credited in the above said account on 12.01.2013. Therefore, the account was operative and transaction took place in the said account on 12.01.2013. The present case was filed on 27.08.2014 and written statement is filed by the defendant no. 1 on 17.11.2014. It is in the written statement that a plea was taken by the defendant no.
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.11 of13 1 that the alleged account has become inoperative due to no transaction for over two years. Therefore, the account must have been declared inoperative before 17.11.2014. When the last transaction which took place in the alleged account was on 12.01.2013 then the account would not have been declared inoperative before 12.01.2015. The documents filed by the defendant no. 1 i.e. Statement of Account clearly reflects that the account was still in operation and could not have been declared inoperative as claimed by the defendant no. 1 before 12.01.2015. That being so, the defence of the defendant no. 1 that the account became inoperative and plaintiff was not allowed to do any transaction due to the said fact as she did not file KYC Form does not hold any ground. Since the account cannot be declared inoperative before the expiry of two years from the last transaction in the alleged account, the defendant no. 1 was not justified in restraining the plaintiff from operating the account and in insisting upon KYC Form. Further, the perusal of statement of account Ex. PW1/4 reflects that mode of operation of the alleged account is 'either or survivor'. Therefore, the plaintiff or her husband could have operated the alleged account and the account was not required to be jointly operative. In view of the above observation, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and defendant no. 1 is directed to allow the plaintiff to operate her bank account as per rules and after completing necessary formalities.
ISSUE NO. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest,if yes, for which period and at what rate ? OPP Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.12 of13
15. The perusal of the statement of account reflects that though the plaintiff was not allowed to operate the account but interest has regularly been credited in her account by the bank. In view of the same, since interest has already been credited regularly, the plaintiff is not entitled to any further interest.
Relief
16. In view of the above observations, suit of the plaintiff is decreed and defendant no. 1 is directed to allow the plaintiff to operate her bank account as per rules and after completing necessary formalities. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. File be consigned to Record Room.
(Typed under my direct dictation)
Announced in open Court. Digitally signed by
Delhi Dated 10.04.2018 ANU AGGARWAL
Location:
This Judgment contains 13 pages ANU Shahdara District,
and each page is signed by me. AGGARWAL Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date: 2018.04.10
15:11:29 +0530
ANU AGGARWAL
JSCC/ASCJ/GJ (SHAHDARA)
KKD COURTS/DELHI
Suit No. 7769 /16 Jyoti vs. Indian Bank & Ors. Page No.13 of13