STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CHANDIGARH CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. SC/4/CC/100/2024 Prem Kaur PRESENT ADDRESS - Ludhiana Punjab ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Complainant(s)

Versus UCO Bank and Ors.

PRESENT ADDRESS - CHD ,CHANDIGARH.

.......Opposite Party(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. PADMA PANDEY , PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER FOR THE COMPLAINANT:

Prem Kaur DATED: 05/03/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Complaint No.	:	100 of 2024
Date of Institution	:	22.10.2024
Date of Decision	:	05.03.2025

Prem Kaur wife of Lt. Samarjeet Singh, resident of H.No.34-A, Model Town Extension, Model Town, Ludhiana, Punjab – 141001.

….Complainant V E R S U S

1. UCO Bank, through its Branch Manager, 1st Floor, Coworking Territory Ventures Pvt. Ltd., Cabin No. 112, SCO 66-67, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh – 160017.

2. UCO Bank, through its Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, SCO 55-56-57, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh – 160017.

3. MD & CEO, Sh. Ashwani Kumar, UCO Bank, Head Office, 8th Floor, 10 B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700 001.

4. Chief Vigilance Officer, Sh. V. Anand, UCO Bank, 4th Floor, 10 B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700 001.

….. Opposite Parties

5. Reserve Bank of India, through its Legal Officer, Central Vista, Sector 17, Chandigarh –

160017.

6. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Department, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, 2nd Floor, Chandigarh – 160017.

….. Proforma Opposite Parties BEFORE: - MR.PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER Present:- Sh. Sangram Saron, Advocate along with Sh. Jatin Bansal, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. Sumit Narang, Advocate along with Sh. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 4.

Sh. Indresh Goel, Advocate for Opposite Party No.5.

None for Opposite Party No.6.

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, as they appear from the record are that the Complainant is a premium account holder with UCO Bank for past 24 years having Savings Account No. 05340100117960 and has been accessing her account, availing various services of the UCO Bank. On 11.09.2024, the Complainant tried to access her saving account, but the transaction failed and she was not able to access her account. It was reflected that account number has been freezed. On 12.09.2024, the Complainant contacted the Bank through e-mail and demanded explanation for freezing of the savings account, in response whereof it was stated that the account was in the active status. Since the Complainant was in dire need of funds to meet her expenses, she attempted to withdraw funds from her account through ATM on 14.09.2024, but the same was also declined despite having sufficient balance in the account. On 16.09.2024, Complainant’s daughter visited the Bank to enquire about denial to access the savings account in question, upon which the Branch Manager assured to rectify the anomaly within 24 hours. After lapse of 24 hours, in furtherance of legal duties and liabilities towards her daughter, the Complainant issued Cheque No. 000056 dated 17.09.2024 for an amount of 5 cores in favour of Smt. Prabhpreet Kaur Sodhi from her savings bank account, however the same was returned and not honoured by the Bank vide Return Memo dated 18.09.2024 on the ground advice not received, despite the fact that prior intimation was also provided to the Bank. Upon enquiry, the Bank officials assured to provide apt resolution within 48 hrs. Instead, the Complainant received a communication from the Bank on 21.09.2024 mentioning about a pending Civil Suit in District Court, Ludhiana. Upon receiving the said communication, the Complainant approached the Bank and clarified that the Civil Suit mentioned in the communication pertained to the inheritance rights of Late Smt. Parminder Kaur and was not even remotely related to the present savings account in question. Since the Complainant was refrained from accessing her own savings account without an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document