Punjab

Sangrur

CC/174/2018

Dheeraj Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Pawan Kumar Gupta

01 Dec 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

 

                                                                         Complaint No. 174

 Instituted on:   06.04.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     01.12.2021

 

Dheeraj Jain S/o Rakesh Jain, resident of Kishanpura, Sangrur, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Axis Bank Limited through its Managing Director/CEO or any other authorized person ‘Axis House’, C-2, Wadi International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025.

2. Axis Bank through its Branch Manager, Kaula Park, Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties

For the complainant  : Shri Pawan Gupta, Adv.              

For OPs                    : Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

Quorum                                          

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER BY:     

S.P.Sood, President:

1.             Shri Dheeraj Jain (hereinafter to be referred  as ‘complainant’) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that he maintains his saving account with OP number 2 bearing number 916010031569184. In fact, complainant has opened current account with OP number 2 on 23.7.2016 after completing all the formalities as some of the officials of OP number 2 had prevailed upon him about several extra ordinary facilities provided by them to go ahead with this development. However, at that point of time when complainant has opened his current account, bank officials never told him about any sort of charges being levied by them which are now hereinafter are being disputed in this complaint.  Since complainant was not happy with the outcome as to how the Ops imposed charges on him, he put forth a request letter before the concerned authorities of OP number 2, banker seeking to close his current account on 1.11.2016 but to his utter surprise whenever complainant happened to visit OP number 2 and ask about the status of the said account he happened to find it to be still operative and active. Even thereafter complainant was instrumental in moving as many as 12 written requests on various occasions addressed to the employees of OP number 2 bankers  seeking closour of his current account but again needful was not done by the authorities.  This is how complainant is still continuing with his current account number 916010031569184  reflecting negative balance therein to the tune of Rs.27,124/- which in fact has accumulated simply on account of indifferent attitude of employees of OP number 2 when they failed to act upon all those 12 written requests for closing of the said account. So, for the above callous approach on the part of officials of OP number 2, complainant being their consumer and Ops being the service provider have not justified their services which can well said to be deficient in nature and likewise OP number 2 can also well said to be indulging into unfair trade practices for getting undue enrichment. As such, faced with this situation complainant was left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint seeking directions to OP number 2 to close the said current account and also to waive off all non-maintenance charges levied till date and also direct OPs to pay compensation  and litigation expenses.

2.             Upon notice, both Ops have contested this complaint alleging that it was none other but complainant himself who had opened current account voluntarily with Axis Bank having its branch at Sangrur after signing  the requisite application form along with other connected  documents and bound himself to abide by various terms and conditions thereof. Even at that occasion, when complainant had executed all these documents, several other conditions associated with the said current account were also explained to him in his simple language and nothing was concealed from him.  Even it was also made clear explicitly that complainant will be supposed to maintain an average balance in his above said current account of Rs.25,000/- otherwise monthly maintenance penal charges will be levied and debited towards his account. Even complainant also opted SMS alert option for which he also agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.35/- for this facility.  Continuing further, Ops have also averred that a totally cock and bull story has been put forth by complainant regarding his having moved any such written request on 1.11.2016 seeking closour of the above said account and likewise nothing has been disclosed by complainant as to whom he had handed over the above said written requests in the branch in this regard rather it was complainant who himself has disclosed that whenever he happened to visit this branch and enquired about the status of his current account he was surprised to find that it was still operative which clearly and manifests that complainant was well aware during this entire period that his said account was still active. However, another story also put forth by complainant regarding his having moved as many as 12 written requests for closour of his account was also emphatically denied especially for the reason that if this was the state of affair then why complainant did not choose to get the receipt of the above said application on any occasion from employees of the bank.  Even otherwise also, none of these written requests has seen the light of the day as complainant has miserably failed to bring a copy of the same on record, therefore, when complainant has not moved any request for closour of his account on a specific form easily available in the branch itself then how his request in this regard could be accepted. In fact complainant has opened CASEL account out of his free will wherein complainant was supposed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- and complainant had signed account opening form alongwith schedule of charges and this is how he was bound by the said conditions.  Since complainant himself has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bank which necessitated of his maintaining Rs.25,000/- in his account which was well known to him, so the deductions made and charges imposed were perfectly as per the said rules and regulations of the bank, so it can also be said that complainant had not come to the court with clean hands rather he has suppressed material facts from this Commission. Besides this, all other averments of the complaint were also denied and it was specifically stated that since there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and they were also not found to be resorting to unfair trade practice, so this complaint is devoid of any merit and same deserves dismissal.

3.             After completion of pleadings of both sides, complainant was called upon to lead evidence in support of their case whereby learned counsel for complainant tendered his sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of legal notice Ex.C-2, copy of bank statement Ex.C-3, copy of bank statement showing charges levied by OP number 2 Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

4.             On the other hand, sworn affidavit of Shri Amit Sharma, Branch Manager, Operations Head was tendered as Ex.OP-1 alongwith account opening form duly filled and signed by complainant Shri Dheeraj Jain Ex.OP-2 alongwith schedule of charges agreed to be bound by complainant by writing his signature underneath the same both the pages was proved as Ex.OP-3.

5.             We have heard the contentions put forth by learned counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the record with their valuable assistance.

6.             Before adverting upon to discuss this case on merits, it is also pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for OPs also relied upon what was observed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in a case titled Economic Transport Organization versus Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. 2010 CPJ 4 (Supreme Court) holding that where the services were availed by the account holder for commercial purposes then the said person availing such services will not be a consumer as per section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act  (as amended). Taking shelter under the above said authoritative pronouncement, the leaned counsel for OPs emphasized that since complainant had opened this current account to facilitate his business activities and was primarily for commercial purposes then he cannot said to be availing their services in capacity as a consumer so this complaint filed by him under Consumer Protection Act was not maintainable.

7.             Further we find that authorized counsel for complainant has argued that in fact his client Shri Dheeraj Jain has opened his current account with OP number 2 after he was lured to go ahead with this development as employees of OPs  had painted a rosy picture for him highlighting various benefits to complainant in maintaining this current account. However, nothing such was disclosed to this gullible person as to whether any sort of penal charges would be levied for his failing to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- in said account.  As such, when such charges were levied on the first occasion itself and the same came to his notice then he immediately swung into action and filed an application for closing this account on 1.11.2016 but without any action on the part of banker.  Continuing further, learned counsel for complainant also argued that things did not stop there only, rather it was none other but complainant himself who moved written requests on 12 occasions for closing his above said account but surprisingly enough again no action was taken thereon and it was a sorry state of affair as officials of the OPs did not do the needful as per his desire and instead thereof they remained busy in levying non maintenance charges in account of complainant and thus leading to a situation when his account started reflecting negative balance of almost Rs.27,000/-.  So, atleast complainant was not expecting all these things to happen which also compelled him to serve upon a legal notice upon the Ops but without any avail, as such, his case deserves to be allowed and Ops be directed to waive off the entire outstanding amount from his account and in addition thereto they should also be called upon to close his account and also to compensate him adequately.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops also argued that when complainant himself filled all the documents like, account opening form and several other incidental documents out of his own free volition and committed himself to abide by all the terms and conditions thereof, now how he can wriggle out of this liability as per his own sweet will.  Likewise, OP number 2 bank has got the specific form for opening of the account likewise specific forms are provided which are supposed to be filled by the account holder, if he does not want to continue with his current account.  When complainant has not submitted above said account closour form then how his request could be acted upon.  Further it was also argued that although complainant has raised a lot of hue and cry regarding his moving as many as 12 written requests still his account has not been closed but it is very surprising that how he could not bring even a single request on record for inspection of this Commission.  Before concluding, learned counsel for OPs also argued that it was only as per terms and conditions governing the said account that he was liable to maintain minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- in the said account, otherwise monthly average balance charges and account maintenance charges were to be imposed and debited to his account thereby leading to reflecting the negative balance, as such there is no merit in the complaint and the same deserves dismissal.

9.             We fully agree with the line of arguments of the learned counsel for the Ops that it was complainant himself who had opened disputed current account with OP number 2 and has committed himself to abide by various obligations attached therewith. Ex.OP-3 relied upon by OPs clearly brings out that complainant himself agreed to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- in his current account falling in CASEL category, out of his free will. In this context, if we look into the bank statement relied upon by complainant as Ex.C-3 and also a part thereof as Ex.C-4 showing a total amount of levied charges, we find these charges were imposed only when the balance in the current account of complainant fell below Rs.25,000/-.  There is a well established latin phrase volente –non fit injuria which means if a person voluntarily opts to get some one else harm himself, then such person cannot seek legal redressal of the same. If we try to explain it by giving an instance we can say that, if a person goes to watch a cricket match and during the game is his is hit by a ball then he cannot file any complaint seeking any compensation from player or any authority and in this case also, when complainant himself opted to open a current account then he also bound himself to abide by the obligations attached thereto.  As such, when complainant himself failed to maintain minimum balance therein so he cannot blame the banker of OP number 2 to have imposed any penal charges against him. So even if they did so, they won’t be found to be deficient in services towards the complainant or any other account holder what to talk of their resorting to unfair trade practice and so for all these reasons, we hereby failed to agree with the line of arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant and found this complaint to be devoid of any merit and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 

10.           A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Pronounced.

 

                                December 1, 2021.

 

              (Sarita Garg)  (Vinod Kumar Gulati)     (S.P. Sood)

    Member              Member                President