A Thane Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held a bank liable to spend Rs. 25,000 to a client for displaying “utter ignorance and unprofessionalism” in their solutions.
Presiding Member SZ Pawar and member Poonam V. Maharshi in their judgment created scathing remarks on Standard Chartered bank, stating that it rendered service to the complainant – a veterinarian with “fault, imperfection” and did not keep the manner of functionality expected by law.
Shahapur-primarily based Dr. Nitesh Kadam had complained to the commission in 2013 that he had been a client of the bank for extra than ten years and had availed its credit card solutions by paying a lifetime subscription. He mentioned the bank had delayed delivery of the credit card on 3 unique occasions from Dec 2011 and June 2013. It sent the card via private courier solutions although he had created repeated requests to send it by courier as the former do not deliver solutions in his region. As a outcome, the cards reached him with a delay of two to 3 months. He mentioned he suffered challenges through his travels abroad and in India due to this. He also complained about a transaction of Rs. 5,026 of which he had received an SMS from the bank, which was under no circumstances performed by him. While he had disputed the transaction with the bank, the bank nevertheless sent him a credit card statement with late payment charges added.
The bank in its defence ahead of the commission mentioned that it had created numerous attempts to provide the card via a private courier service, but considering that it could not be delivered, they had sent it via speed post. Regarding the disputed transaction, the bank mentioned that the dispute investigation course of action expected a minimum 45 days as it involved the merchant and its bankers. Further it mentioned that the complaint had been created to harass it and tarnish its image.
The judgment when declaring the bank deficient in service mentioned that the complainant was in continuous touch with the bank via emails and requested it to send the card via speed-post, but the bank had ignored his requests and continued to send them by courier and waited for extended periods of 3 to 4 months for the response from the courier corporations, thereby depriving him from availing solutions for a extended period.
Regarding the disputed transaction the commission mentioned that the bank took months collectively to resolve the dispute and acted in an “arbitrary manner” as per its whims. It observed that the bank attempted to shift the blame on third parties and attempted to allege that the complaint was filed to harass it. “In our view, being a multi-national bank, the opponent bank should have acted upon the grievances of the complainant promptly to maintain their reputation…but compelled him to adopt legal recourse for redressal of his grievance.”