ICICI BANK LTD. Vs. MANJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/respondent-Manjeet Singh had a Demat Account linked to his Saving Bank Account with the petitioner bank. The complainant received a letter dated 01.08.2006 informing him that due to flood in Mumbai, the documents relating to his Demat Account had been destroyed and therefore he was required to resubmit the same. According to the complainant, he contacted the Customer Care, which promised to send a representative to him for completing the paper work but no such representative contacted him. He then sent an SMS to the notified number 676766 but still no one approached him for completion of the paper work. The Demat Account of the complainant was frozen in Sept. 2007. On the complainant visiting the Demat Sec. of Pitampura Branch of the petitioner bank, a representative was sent to him on 17.01.2008 after several requests. The aforesaid representative got the formalities completed and collected the duly filled in form and photographs of the complainant on 17.01.2008. Despite the complainant having completed the aforesaid paper work, his account was not reactivated. He was informed by the Customer Care that he could apply to the Call Center for issue of a new Password using which he could operate his account. He accordingly approached the Call Center on 07.02.2008 and was promised that the new Password would be issued within 7 days. The account however was not reactivated despite several calls and reminders made by the complainant including the reminders sent by him to the concerned Branch Manager Mr. Kumar Satyam on his Mobile No. 9999786723. Thereafter, he made written complaint expressing his grievance. The copies of the complaint were also sent to the Corporate Office of the Bank. On 19.03.2008, one Mr. Vinod Arora came to the complainant from Azadpur Branch and got the form duly filled up for him for the second time. Despite that, his account was not activated. The complainant also made complaint to the Chairman of ICICI Bank Ltd. but nothing moved the bank. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint impleading ICICI Bank and its Chairman as the opposite parties and seeking reactivation of his account besides compensation etc.

(2.) The petitioner bank and its Chairman filed a joint reply stating therein that their record having been damaged due to flood in Navi Mumbai, they had requested the complainant to resubmit the documents. The complainant however did not fill up the forms as the format prescribed by the bank. A reminder was then issued to him on 09.12.2006 with the request to resubmit the account opening form. The said form according to the opposite parties was not submitted even thereafter. It was further alleged in the written version filed before the District Forum that the form which the complainant submitted in Jan. 2008 was rejected and the same was rectified in May 2008 thereafter the account was activated.

(3.) The District Forum vide its order dated 17.11.2011 directed the opposite party in the complaint to immediately activate the Demat Account of the complainant and also pay a sum of Rs. 1 Lakh as compensation to him.