The complainant visited a bank to deposit Rs 2.50 lakh in cash at the close of business for the day. The cashier, by that time, had already closed the cash counter and requested the complainant to deposit the amount the next day.
The main grievance was about the rude behaviour of the cashier. The bank conducted an inquiry into the matter.
Not being satisfied with the employee's response, the bank transferred him to one of its farthest branches.
Based on the action taken by the bank, the banking ombudsman (BO) treated the complaint as closed.
According to the complainant, transfer was not a punishment. He appealed to the Appellate Authority (AA) seeking redressal of his complaint, following the mental agony caused and in the best interest of justice.
Since ‘treating bank customers fairly' is gaining currency with the awakening of consumers on the issues of investor/consumer protection and banking being a service industry, it is all the more important that there is a well-defined and functional mechanism to ensure fair treatment of the customer. That is the crux of the BO Scheme.
Therefore, the bank was advised that the issue in general and the present case in particular be deliberated by the board of directors of the bank.
Closure of account despite KYC formalities at non-home branch : In a complaint regarding unilateral closure of a savings bank account where the complainant had submitted that despite submission of the KYC (Know Your Customer) documents twice, the bank had closed his account without any intimation to him, it was ascertained that the complainant had submitted the documents at a non-home branch and, as per the system prevailing in the bank, the KYC documents can be submitted at a non-home branch.
The bank was directed to pay a token compensation of Rs 5,000 for the inconvenience caused to the complainant.
(This is the Sixteenth in the series on redressal of customer grievances by the Banking Ombudsman being carried in these columns.)
(Source: Annual report of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme.)