Whether SBI Lucknow is not misleading the concerned by concealing the facts.

Grievance Status

Print || Logout
Status as on 23 Feb 2016

Registration Number : DEABD/E/2016/02111
Name Of Complainant : Mahesh Pratap Singh
Date of Receipt : 23 Feb 2016
Received by : Department of Financial Services (Banking Division)
Forwarded to : State Bank of India
Officer name : Shri Anoop Kumar Palit
Officer Designation : General Manager
Contact Address : Corporate Centre, Customer Service Deptt.
State Bank Bhawan, 6th Floor, Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai400021
Contact Number : 02222740460
e-mail : gm.customer@sbi.co.in
Grievance Description : Registration Number : DEABD/E/2016/01595 Name Of Complainant : Mahesh Pratap Singh Date of Receipt : 10 Feb 2016 Received by : Department of Financial Services (Banking Division) Forwarded to : SBI LHO LUCKNOW Contact Address : State Bank of India,New Administrative Bldg. , Motimahal Marg , Hazratganj , Lucknow (UP)226001 Contact Number : 05222201492 Status as on 21 Feb 2016 Date of Action : 18 Feb 2016 Details : EMAIL REPLY SENT TO THE COMPLAINANT IS ATTACHED FOR N/A If the matter is resolved then what is the need of this e-mail. S.B.I. Lucknow only misled the concerned. Mahesh Pratap Singh Yogi M P Singh Feb 20 (1 day ago)   to sbi.12731   To                                  Hon’ble Branch Manager                                   State Bank of India                                         Mirzapur city Subject-It is most unfortunate that your applicant is still deprived from the internet banking facility despite your assurances to provide. With due respect your applicant wants to draw the kind attention of the Hon’ble Sir to the following submissions as follows. 1-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that please take a glance of e-mail sent to your applicant in order to resolve my grievances. No action was taken in regard to assurance made by you Hon’ble Sir.  2-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that whether this is not criminal breach of trust that your applicant is being repeatedly misled instead of providing him services as assurance made to him. 3-It is submitted before the Hon’ble Sir that it seems that some one in the department is stumbling block in providing services to your applicant otherwise there may not be so inordinate delay.
Date of Action : 23 Feb 2016

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: