oO (@) Customer has sent complaint to our Managing 232 BOLIC erence Inter-Office-Memorandum From: To, ‘The Zonal Manager ‘The General manager Ludhiana ZONE. Head Office General Operation Departments, ‘Legal Department. Contact No : 0161-2410802, 2430122 Ref. No. Z0:GOD:PK:20-21-009 Dates 23-03-2037 Order dated 02.03.2021 In second Appeal No. CIC/BKOIN/A/2018//146528 filed by Mr. Bharat Kapoor. We refer to your IOM No. HO:LGL:NH.1738 dated 09.03.2021 wherein your office sought ‘ut our specific report on the allegation made by Mi. Bharat Kapoor (RT applica) including the details of investigation done, if ay. ‘We once again submit our reply on the matter a under: rector & CEO regarding charges of physical abuse ofa Senior Citizen when he went to bank with his complaints. In this repard a letter Ref. no. CEBB: MV: 2016 -17/49 dated 21.07.2016 issued to customer ‘mentioning that “We affirm that after cognizance of your complaint, the Bank has acted upon, the same. AS sleady advised to you the easier branch Head is transferred and the present ‘Branch Head/other staff has been issued striet instruction to attend to you and your matters on priority basis. They have also been sternly advised that you and all the other customers ofthe ‘Branch have to be well eated” (nelosed the letter dated 21.07 2016) @) Inthe same matter customer has agsin sent a leer dated 16.08.2018 to The Managing Director with CC to The General Manager, CEBB Department, Head Office, Bank of India, Mumbsi, received by HO on dated 21.08.2018. The Zonal Office, Ludhiana has replied point Wise to The General Manager CEBB Dept. Mumbai in the above seid complaint on 03.11.2018 which is enclosed herewith, We mention here, Mr. Kapur has initially complained about early payment of redemption of Inflation Indexed National Saving Securies-C. He fas lodged his complaint on vatious diferent porals ie, CEBB, Banking Omibudsman, District Consumer Disputes Redressed, State Commission and National Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum. Bank hes already paid him compensation of Rs. 15000/- (2500+12500) as per order from National Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum.1% may be observed that Mr. Kapur is habitsal complainant and making one after another complaint at sume o different platform in one oF another shape Branch’ Zonal Office have made efforts numerous times to satisfy his issues, but being resolution not of his taste, Me. Kapur time and again makes complains. There is no essence in ‘the complaint of Mr. Kepur. However, we have issued instructions to New Branch Head/ other stafTto attend Mr. Kapur on priority basis and give no chance to further make exeuse for fresh complaint,eran ote cates rome Se PR nape Sb Compt at tins ona Oon Ret: CRBS Opp Sten. CESEANZNE TT 2 au tee oo We 20008 ste un D8 ha seatons ntact + Charges py abuse of Sar cin whan 4205 Bank Ne cnn “we tim ta ater aking core of yest fe Bank ak eed ort sae ‘As oeady aed to you be eater Branch eae thes ard be ese res a Sue, er uve nen cry Soe w a ah ear aee , Fave io beet testes, aie ‘+ Corre the reno he Ter Dept Me Kapur . | | fina rraus of Depot of tee Kar, Liana Zane hes aes ef you vo tartare po 2c 106 da. 08 018 For your aay recs Seek 1S eposoa ere el “fete TDR weet ig ay ans ena ucts, sae wanes 9 ae Siew tnt to ie maton 2 122015 pee D — wdaeetse5oieia mney tre pce eo { 1+ Any contmed snd ep win assrance fom he Branch .2ne or Hed Ost ‘en sft ad dgney of he Ser Choe Qe Nass Raps pd Sih eel {inn we rarsnsng te i aro ern seca Ha naghcuood i 25 snd dato abv, he eat Pas en aa te sone you a wa he Star custnar seal bowel veut na St od syepe ave evo ben Sveedio uke ears caret Sano Ctzen nal pousse naan, We assure you that san eter csr four Sak, bat sive wl be dete to you and ‘i you bvkrg eds woul e care ne bes posse ny, wn te pe of anh) Ret soon we ‘9h GENERA MANAGER emeetecittee recente ny mi eine tenetoO a susgo1% 20:GOD:AR:2018. 102 To, “The General Manager, CEBB department, Head office Bank of India, Mumbai _ Ref: Two complaints relating adjudicated by & CIC, New Delhi Respectively inst the Bank of India, jistt-Luahiana Dear Sit, ‘We request efr to your email dated 28.09.2018, thereby forwarding complaint dates 16.08.2018 of Sh Bharat Kapoor, H1No 23, Sukhmani Enclave, Ludhiane agaist Lauchiana Zonal Office, NDR. “This sin reforence to letter dated 16.8.2018 Sh. Bharat Kepoor on the sted subject, ‘The point wise reply reading complaint is as under- 1. _Inreply to parano, 1 of leter under reply iis stated thet whatever orders were passed by the authorities referred to in this para ofthe letter isa mater of recor, however we would like toad that the allegations of physical abuse and eallous behavior is wrong. In any case this ratter has been adjudicated upon and we would not like to enter into any further ‘correspondence inthis regard. ‘The contents of para no.2 of eter is also a matter of record 3. Imanswer fo para no, 3 of letter under reply itis stated thatthe bank and it management is fully conscience and avae ofthe rules of management and governance and all actions are ‘akon as per the rules governing te bank. Needless toad that there are in built procedure 19 snalyses the sets and performance ofthe offcees/oficials of the bank and necessary action is ‘ken as pe the facts and circumstances ofthe case, 4-5. _Inseply to para no, 4 and S e would like to sate thatthe matter refered by you has been highly edjudieated upon by the court end it would be inappropriate to comment on this mater. Since your grievance has been finally decided by te CIC and NCDR of competent jisdction it would be most inappropriate to further stretch the controversy inthe matter. All your — ‘uddressed to the management of the bank were duly considered and in eG DDview of the matter being decided by the cout no further ation was considered necessary oF desirable 6. Weare notin agreement withthe contention made by you thatthe redressed system of | ‘he bank is dysfunctional. There i a well-defined and well regulated system prevailing in the bank for a thorough analyses of dhe complains received by the bank and each complaint is dealt with as per well defined roles and regulations framed by the bank and your complaints were also dealt with sceordingly. The working of the bank in this regard doce not fall within ‘he public domain. Moreover, ater the matter hus been finally decided by a court of competent Jurisdiction in which you had fled th complaint the bank doesnot think it sppropriate to enter into any furer correspondence with youin the matter. Needless toad that i the prerogative ‘ofthe adainistration to deal with ll The matters as per the rules znd regulations frsined by the ‘bank which was also done in your mater. 7. The llegations repeated in para no. 7 was also the subject matter of the complain filed by you before the District Consumer Forum and this matter was finally decided by the [National Consumer Forum and there verdict was accepted. with all graciousness bythe bank, 8, Ashe aleady been stated herein above all your communietion and correspondence ‘were duly considered and replied and also in view ofthe fat that. your grievances have heen. finaly decided by the court and accepting the verdict the bankchas already obeyed and complied with te sid erders, there is nothing mote lft in the complaint regarding the conduct of the officers ofthe Barewal Branch ofthe bank. 9. Since the communication addressed by Mr. Bharat Kapoor has been duly replied, the bank does not consider appropriate to enter ino any further controversies inthe matter. The bank bas finally accepted the verdict of te court and it know considered it good arder 10 consider the matter has closed and wih al humility we request you todo the same 10. Asha slready been stated hereinabove afr the final verdict ofthe cout the bank bas closed the matter. After the matter has been finally decided by the highest appellate cout sot ‘up in the country for redressing the grievances ofthe consumes, the bank is ofthe considered opinion thatthe complaint has been finally decided and reached its logical conclusion. The subject mater of your present communication pertains to the matter which was the subject ‘matter of your complaint filed before the District Consumer Forum and finally desied by the ‘National Consumer Forum, the bank is of the opinion that the matter has reached its final Jogical conclusion and no further consideration i called for. ‘Thus in the end we request you to accept the verdict of the court as final and teat the mater ss closed. Yours FaNilly ( re'Shatms) ‘Deputy Zonal Managerte Fm Roan Meakin, The Mangig Dost, Bantofinn C55, Block, Banda Kurta Complex, Bandra (Ea), Mmba0051 Seb: Compints Hoang Lahn Zona Ome NCD. Reg: Two complaints adjudicated by & Ch sespeetively against the Bank, New Dai Si, 1 That [ ai a marginal saving account holder, in the Senior Citizen category, at Barewal Road Branch, Ludhiana where I had to face, besides physical abuse and eallour behavior, a serious problom on account of the defciony in service in the FY, 2014-15, Unable to get any and or de redressalatall the folowing appropiate levels: Branch Head = Zonal lead = ~ CEBB & ED Secret, Mumba + Banking Ombudsman, Chandigarh was consained t fe & coviplalat with Diswet Consumer Forum, Ludhiana and also sougt the requisite infomnation on the ATR, on the complaits, fr the delay and inaction the part ofthe Bank under the [RIT Act. Fail, ater a period of over two yeuss, the adjudicating authorities at NCDRC and CIC, New Deli imposed certain financial penalties on the ‘Bank du to the violation ofthe respective laws of Consumer Protection and RItAc 7 2 ‘That ite not the quantum of compensition or penalty, bu itis ‘he vindicaon of the violation of rights of a common citizens by a Pubic Authority whic was upheld by both the qua judicial autos 3 ‘That whatsoover litle knowledge that [have and have further soquived the information in respect tothe provisions or the iterial rulers of governance, a Public Authority has to conduct an enquiry, under the charter of ‘obligations, within ts own organization into such nstanes which had led into the imposition of financial penalties. Since any organization hss to be governed or managed by is employers, at all Levels, and came act on is ‘wn, any aberration happens only on accouat of lepss of apy single or groupof persous who are to be held accountable so that such detciencies are voided in he fut. 4 ‘That the present commanication is being submited primarily to you forthe initiation ofan objective ané wel termed enquity o ascertain the ‘cause andthe subsequent fuure, at all levels, to accord the da redress of he complaints in respect to a simple process of the premature retirement of RBI Bonds. It ise matter of resord thatthe concerned euthoritos ofthe Bank ‘nad cited the conadictry and imaginary cause forthe delay before the two ‘qasijuicil authorities eifferenly. Hed the complaint been onder the preview ofthe Civil Cou, finitely I would have inatod the provisions of perjury agains the two Managies (Me. Keith & Mr. Bhajen Singh, te ten [Nodal Officer, Chandigarh Branch forthe false statement made vader Oat, in the Affidavit form. with Distict Forum, Ludhiana and Banking Ombudsman respectively. Is well documented inthe ese fies 3 “That the secondary issue emanates from the instance of physical sbuse end callous atiude ofthe then Branck Manager Mr, Kanth which was consciously ignored by the thea Zonal Manager Me. Stukls for te reasons ‘est known to him. Since I ad faced this ignominy, at an advance stage of my life, which happoned after the two complains wor filed. Neverthe less in all the subsequent comespondences with the then MD Mr. Rego and GM CEBB (Ma. Mesna het isos were well aamated which were never edresse 6 ‘That such 2 dysfunctional edresa system prevaled during that period that it in practice it volted all the laid down norms which were obtained by me under the RTI Act from the Head Office. It also violated the principles of natural justice to the eomplaizant, ‘The complaints which wore submsited, inthe personal names of the MD apd GM CEBB against the particular ffcas had bees It fr the disposal bythe same ofl, 1 ‘That mere acknowledgement of the last complaint to the MD / (CHO states that "the ei Branch Hed is transfered” and the prevent taf been advised to allend the “mntiers 0 priory bass" (lo quote die CEBE leter dated 21.07 2016) not the jusice accorded to the complainant forthe ‘hysieal abuse and the protracted mental harassment The jastice soul! also seems to have been done. 8 “That the tain or pertinent issues in every single communication received from the Seaior Officials in respect to any complaint, have either been skied over or have been dealt without applization ofthe mind required forthe actual redrestal. Or course none ofthe official hud forgtien to athe lasing line suchas "inconvenience caused is reurete 9 That even my wife, who otherwise by profession is well receptive to the delinuest behaviouriom, bad felt perturbed over the Inymiliaton offered by me atthe hands ofthe top officals in the ‘xianaone. And after experiencing the cavalier munnerem of the two tenor mat officals» Mf. Bansal, ZM and Mr. Gupta, Dy. ZM, daring our visit 1 Zo Office that she had adresse a dtect complained tothe MD, Me. Rego on 4.062018. And the reply fom the Bank dated 22.06.2018 wait more of a Piece of education to fllow the rules (as if we were the violators of the Banking Roles) than a redcestal forthe grave harassment inflicted on the family. The pertinent issues were again let unresolved and yes, the writer over Forgot to offer eprels er nconvenience caused, tl 10, In the end, I Jouve it to the fine sense of the administrative seumen ofthe senior most finctionary of the Pubic Authority ie. Bank of| India o consider the present prays logialconclsion Thereby afin that Ihave explicit eancurence of my wife Mrs. - + Neots Kspurforthe present submission Oo € oc ant iharat Kaper) cee 1. ‘The General Manager, CEBB Department, Head Office, Bank of India, Mombs