Indian Law Permits Bank to Close Account Without Pan Card Details
If you have not furnished details of your PAN card to your bank, this is the best time to start or else the bank can close it.
The Permanent Account Number (PAN) is allotted to an individual by the Income Tax Department of India. Under the provisions of Indian laws, PAN card is a mandatory requirement, for carrying out any financial transaction.
On 20th June 2010, a Consumer Court in Delhi ruled that a bank is authorized under Indian Law to close the account of a customer, who fails to provide permanent account number (PAN) card.
B.A. Zaidi, the president of Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, has refused to grant any relief to the customer, whose account was closed by the HDFC Bank for the requirement of PAN card details. He also said that the Bank cannot be held at fault for closure of the account in such circumstances.
Indian Law: Consumer Commission Orders Closure of Account in Absence of PAN Details
Indian law grants citizens with rights as well as duties. Consumer laws enable you to make a complaint in case you, as a consumer, believe that there was any deficiency in service or product given to you. In this case, Mr. Ramesh, an aggrieved customer, filed a petition with the Commission against the HDFC Bank. He contended that he has suffered due to incomplete financial transactions, as his account was closed without his consent. His plea was to reopen the account.
The bank argued that it has conducted review of all the accounts of the complainant. However, it was found that the volume of transactions, in the account of the complainant was not in compliance with the Anti-Money laundering guidelines of the RBI.
The Commission supported the observations of a district consumer forum, about the notification of the bank to the complainant and about closing of his account. The reason communicated for such a closure was due to the high volume of financial transactions, which were not in proportion with the business conducted through the bank. The Commission further observed that the bank has earlier offered its alternative services to the petitioner. It held that the bank was not guilty of deficiency in services.