In a recent ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Karnal, Haryana, IDFC Bank was deemed accountable for a lapse in service. The verdict was reached by a panel consisting of Jaswant Singh (President), Vineet Kaushik (Member), and Dr Suman Singh (Member). The bank was reprimanded for unjustly freezing a customer’s bank account without giving a satisfactory explanation. The commission thus ordered IDFC Bank to reactivate the client’s savings account, and compensate for the mental distress and legal costs, amounting to Rs. 25,000 and Rs. 11,000 respectively.
The matter arose when the client, Mr. Dipin, found out that his savings account with IDFC Bank, which held a balance of approximately Rs. 1,40,631, had been unexpectedly frozen. The bank, to his surprise, had not issued any prior notice of this action. His attempts to seek an explanation from the bank were futile, which led him to file a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Karnal, Haryana. The bank, however, did not present itself for the court proceedings.
The Commission, upon reviewing the matter, found that Mr. Dipin had sufficiently proven the existence of his savings account with IDFC Bank. This was corroborated by his passbook and account statement, showing a balance of Rs. 1,40,631. It was concluded that the bank had indeed frozen his account without legitimate cause.
Moreover, the Commission observed that Mr. Dipin had made efforts to settle the issue by sending a legal notice to the bank through his lawyer, which the bank declined to acknowledge. It was also noted that despite receiving the complaint notice, the bank chose not to appear before the Commission. The bank’s manager, in particular, was criticized for his irresponsible behavior as he received and acknowledged the summon but failed to respond. The Commission, therefore, deemed the bank guilty of service deficiency and unfair trade practices.
In conclusion, the Commission ordered IDFC Bank to unfreeze Mr. Dipin’s savings account and to pay him Rs. 25,000 for the mental anguish and Rs. 11,000 for the legal expenses he incurred. The bank was also reminded that it could choose to recover these amounts from the salary of the officer who was responsible for this lapse.
This verdict serves as a reminder to all banking institutions about the importance of communicating effectively with their customers and responding promptly to their concerns. The ruling also underscores the power of consumer forums in protecting consumer rights, and their role in ensuring fair practices in the market.
