Pay compensation for violating norms, IDBI told

Avneet Kaur

Jalandhar, February 11

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum here has ordered Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) Limited to pay Rs 40,000 to a Phillaur-based resident for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs and also refund Rs 10,89,344 to her.

The forum, comprising Karnail Singh as president and Jyotsna as members, also directed that the interest on the amount to be refunded would be 12 per cent per annum from the respective dates of deposit till actual realisation.

Jagdish Kaur Rihal, the complainant, in her complaint had said she was maintaining a demat account.

Besides, she was availing a loan facility against her shares since March 3, 2004. The sanctioned loan limit against her holding was Rs 15,00,000.

She complained that the bank sold her share amount to Rs 10,89,344 against her overdue of Rs 4,67,003 without sending her a notice in advance. However, as per the bank norms, it was compulsory on the part of bank to give at least a three-day notice to make the repayment and in case if the account holder fails to meet the requirement, the bank was at liberty to exercise its right to sell the shares to any person.

She said she was doing the share trading to earn livelihood as self-employment with the IDBI and had always complied with the terms of the bank.

She said she handed over the following shares to Rohit Mahajan, who was the assistant manager with the IDBI in December 2008 for converting the same into a demat account.

Along with this, he also obtained signatures of the complainant on a few stamp papers on the plea that the same were to be sued for getting the shares converted into a demat account, Jagdish Kaur said in her complaint.

She said despite obtaining the entire share certificates in original along with required stamp papers duly signed, the bank miserably failed to get the same converted into a demat account.

She said if the shares had been demat by the bank on time, then the overdue amount would had been paid and there was no need of selling any shares.

In its reply, the bank maintained that the complainant did not come within the definition of the term consumer as she was running the trading of shares, vide her demat account. Moreover, by mentioning the word “that the complainant had been trading in shares to earn livelihood as self-employment”, does not bring the same into the definition, as the very purpose was commercial.

It also said the share the complainant had deposited could not be de-materialised as the same were in a joint name, along with her husband, whereas her account is in her own name. Hence, there was no occasion to convert the same, certificate of which was given to the bank for conversion to her account.

Meanwhile, the forum in its judgment said the state commission apparently held that the complainant was a consumer, through its judgment dated January 22, 2016, against the plea of the IDBI that the complainant was not a ‘consumer’ and had sent back the case in hand for fresh decision to the district forum.

It further said without giving three days’ time to the complainant, the bank had sold the share which was exactly a violation of the terms of the agreement executed between the parties and thus, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.

The order

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in its judgment said without giving three days’ time to the complainant, the IDBI had sold the share which was exactly a violation of the terms of the agreement executed between the parties and thus, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the bank. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the relief.