Dear Mr Sarbajit,
Pls see below information wrt one of my problems.
"I had requested Kotak Mahindra Bank (KMB) to open an NRE Savings Account for me. I had also applied for a "Two-Way Sweep (TWS)" with my NRE Account, which was not provided by the bank. When I enquired, they told me that the feature was not available for NRE Accounts. I late r came to know that the feature had always been available with NRE Accounts in KMB. I approached the Bank for compensation as I had lost almost Rs 50K as interest on my money in the NRE Account. When the Bank refused, I escalated the matter to the Banking Ombudsman (BO), New Delhi. In between, I had also approached the Bank's Nodal Officer, but he too had not accepted my request.
2. After the Bank refused to agree with my contentions, the BO's office fixed a conciliatory meeting in RBI in end-May 09. During the meeting, the Bank officials claimed that I had never asked for the TWS to be made available to me. They further stated that I had not ticked the required box in the AOF requesting for this feature. I had, in fact, ticked the required box in the AOF. The BO asked the Bank to produce the AOF, but the bank off icials said they had not brought the same. The BO asked them to submit the AOF to their office by the next day.
3. The BO closed my complaint under para 13 (c) of the amended BO Scheme 2006 on the grounds that it required going through extensive oral and documentary evidence which was not possible under the BO Scheme.
4. After the conciliation meeting, I requested the BO's office to send a copy of the AOF submitted by KMB to me also for my confirmation as I suspected some foul play by the Bank. When the BO's Office refused to give me a copy of the AOF, I sent an application to RBI under the RTI Act 2005, asking for a copy of the AOF submitted by the Ba nk. I received the AOF sometime back and was aghast to see that the AOF submitted by KMB to the BO's office was a forged document. The signatures on the form were not mine at all. Also, the signatures of my wife on the form, who was the mandate holder, had also been forged.
5. It is very likely that the people in the BO New Delhi's Office are working in connivance with the Bank officials to ensure that their wrong doings are covered up. I intend taking the case to its logical conclusion. Can somebody advise the best way out for me hereafter".
2. After the Bank refused to agree with my contentions, the BO's office fixed a conciliatory meeting in RBI in end-May 09. During the meeting, the Bank officials claimed that I had never asked for the TWS to be made available to me. They further stated that I had not ticked the required box in the AOF requesting for this feature. I had, in fact, ticked the required box in the AOF. The BO asked the Bank to produce the AOF, but the bank off icials said they had not brought the same. The BO asked them to submit the AOF to their office by the next day.
3. The BO closed my complaint under para 13 (c) of the amended BO Scheme 2006 on the grounds that it required going through extensive oral and documentary evidence which was not possible under the BO Scheme.
4. After the conciliation meeting, I requested the BO's office to send a copy of the AOF submitted by KMB to me also for my confirmation as I suspected some foul play by the Bank. When the BO's Office refused to give me a copy of the AOF, I sent an application to RBI under the RTI Act 2005, asking for a copy of the AOF submitted by the Ba nk. I received the AOF sometime back and was aghast to see that the AOF submitted by KMB to the BO's office was a forged document. The signatures on the form were not mine at all. Also, the signatures of my wife on the form, who was the mandate holder, had also been forged.
5. It is very likely that the people in the BO New Delhi's Office are working in connivance with the Bank officials to ensure that their wrong doings are covered up. I intend taking the case to its logical conclusion. Can somebody advise the best way out for me hereafter".
In the above matter, I had complained about my forged signatures to the BO, New Delhi in Fen 2010. They forwarded the complaint to the Department of Banking Supervision in Feb itself. The DBS sent my complaint to KMB, but I haven't heard from them since then. On telephone I came to know that the DBS has recd the reply of KMB, but I have not been told anything.
I would be grateful if you could please advise me on this. I have sent another RTI to RBI enquiring a lot of things wrt my complaint's handling by the BO. Since I did not receive any reply from the CPIO, I have sent an email, escalating the RTI to the FAA.
Thanks/Brgds
AK Anand
__._,_.___
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment