nomenclature of account
s.loganathan
(Querist) 01 November 2010
This query is : Resolved
The Bank has allocated three a/c nos. and all for the same entity. I only opened two accounts and duly filled up the application for a/c opening as per KYC norms of RBI. I requested for the a/c opening details but got no reply, so I sent them a legal letter from my advocate and have still been ignored, and on the contrary the Bank diverts and circumvents the issue and file a case against me still without divulging the requested details. The Bank will be exposed upon a grave negligence, which has not been pointed out even for three years by the bank audits. There is no such account and the Bank is refusing to address it. The RTI application to the Branch levels only addresses the ACPIO, but the application to the Chairman & MD sent instruction to the CPIO to dispose of the application directly. Hopefully, the faults & fallacies of the Bank with regard to the 'Ghost' a/c will finally be brought to fore. Though the bank somehow confused my account with the other a/c, I have always only had correspondences with my a/c name and affix only my seal as per my real a/c. I need to know my legal position as to whether I can be made liable for the banks negligence?
pawan sharma
(Expert) 02 November 2010
No. you would not be.
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 02 November 2010
Your query is very very ambiguous. Please clarify the following:
(a) What is the type of said account opened?
(b) What is your specific apprehension with regard to the said 'ghost' account as termed by you?
(c) When you have filled only two applications for opening of account, where is the need for your seek details with regard to the said third account?
(d) How can you open two accounts in the same branch/bank and for what reasons and circumstances?
(e) What are the specific accusation against you as you said bank has filed a case?
(f) What is their requirement as drafted in the Bank's writ petition?
Please reply to the specific points as asked which would enable to take a lead further with the participation of other experts.
s.loganathan
(Querist) 02 November 2010
Oh! Oh!.....touchy aren't we. Mr.Parthasarathy Loganathan, you being employed with a leading Bank will certainly find it difficult to digest these kind of accusations upon a Bank, but unfortunately that seems to be the truth. You are right when you ask as to why I should ask for details of a third a/c when I had opened only two. When the Bank has sent statements with a third a/c name and number and claims that it is mine then should I not ask for those details? Worst still, the Bank had transfered monies from my a/c to the third a/c. You can maybe throw some light on the issue, you being a cyber expert, could it have been a computer error for generating an account just to accommodate all my entries. Even so, how was it not reflected in the audits for three years. As for the cases being dealt with the Bank, that is not the question put forth, however I have already posted them before the experts of this forum and have been discussed throughly and opined. I am sorry, but your response carried an aura of bias and affiliation and hence this response accordingly.
Parthasarathi Loganathan
(Expert) 02 November 2010
Though I am still puzzled and carried away by the title of your query viz Nomenclature of account, this appears to be very serious prima facie. Certainly you are entitled to seek details of the said third account's xerox copy of account opening form which purportedly stands in your name. Further, the mandate or the authority under which the bank has transferred funds from your account to the said account needs to be placed before Banking Ombudsman.
So called Computer errors is now a thing of the past as bank's exercise due diligence in the operational part. However, transactions in personal account maintained in the bank is never subject to audit as the statement of account itself is the reflection of all inflows and outflows and reconciliation if any is carried out by the parties concerned. That is not the issue. But I am afraid the spirit and essence of my posing clarifications is in no way take me to the cabin of biased approach on my part.I still honestly believe that your issue is not related to a nationalized bank as we attend to technical constraints intimated even in single post card sent by any customer. Our heads actually roll when it relates to your type of strange issues till it gets resolved. Bank officers to heave a sigh of relief only when they are not made parties to irregularities as stated in your query. That is the ground reality.
I am glad that you have highlighted the real issue. Being a customer you have redressal mechanisms functioning honestly at every layers under the vigilant supervision of Regulatory authorities. You need to repose faith on the system. We need to simply believe and accept the fact that banks never be a party to embezzle customers funds being the custodians. Even if any employee commits a fraud he is not only shown the doors but the customers are never put to financial loss.
There is nothing wrong in me being passionate to the banking sector. Wish you good luck.
s.loganathan
(Querist) 10 November 2010
Sadly not. The issue has been taken up with higher forums like the RBI and the Finance Ministry. After all they are the ones who promulgate the rules and guidelines, and are duty bound to enforce its administration. Time will tell this tale.
s.loganathan
(Querist) 06 February 2012
Namaste! Gentlemen of LCI. It has been more than a year since I engaged, Sorry, but the issue was getting legal attention to jeopardize my case. Even directives by RBI and MoF did not get any reply as to why there was a third account no. In fact the IA's filed in the OA's & SA's also did not expose the reason for the existence of a third account. Now, after 18 months of struggle in the DRT forums in vain, I made a criminal complaint to the Police Commissioner and he had ordered investigation. Now, finally when the Bank is backed to the wall, they have conjured an excuse saying that the third account was inadvertently created when 'core banking' was introduced and that the account number was also changed and also the name was also wrongly entered and thus that account is this account. Don't laugh yet gentlemen, it gets better. When I started to exert pressure in obtaining the details of the account opening forms as per the KYC Norms of RBI, the Bank stalled for such a long time and I guess some nincompoop in Bank's recovery sleuths came up with this brain-child strategy to cover-up and to validate their stand and to support their theory they relied on some fiduciary documents that has purportedly been with the exclusive possession of the Bank. Unfortunately time transfers officers on account of promotions and retirements.
Thanks to the Gods of fortune, a rookie who was thinking that he was acting diligently produced all the documents that were sought for after one year of persistence before the DRT. The fiduciary document so relied upon by the Bank to justify all their internal queries was exposed to be a fabricated document and they even went to the extent of forging my signature on it so that it will purportedly give a impression of having my sanctity over it. I complained to the DRT which fell on deaf ears (as usual) and I also sent copies of the document for scientific expert opinion and the same has been established as forged. Now, gentlemen you may laugh as I am profusely. "SERIOUS PRIMA-FACIE INDEED" So much for 'computer errors being a thing of the past', 'reposing faith in the banking system',and last but no least 'the fact that banks never be a party to embezzlement of customers funds being custodian of the same' sure is a misnomer and falls smack on the face. The police have also said that they are going to send the documents for expert opinion to
counter validate the experts report. SHAME ON THE BANK.
The Bank had put up a case on their mistakes are also guilty of criminal acts. Gentlemen, please give me suggestions on the plethora of possibilities on actions that I can now take.
