Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/412

Jaswnt Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Rajni Bala Adv.

21 Sep 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:412 dated 24.05.2017.                                                        Date of decision: 21.09.2021. 

Jaswant Rai Saini aged 65 years, Proprietor Rai Property Dealer S/o. Sh. Amar Nath Saini, office at Flat No.33/478, Near Shanti Model School, Saroop Nagar, Salem Tabri, Ludhiana.         

2^nd Residential Address

Quarter No.16, Ward No.34, Old Sabji Mandi, Kapoor Hospital, Ludhiana.                                                                                             ..…Complainant

                             Versus

Axis Bank, branch office Plot No.B-II, Ground Floor, Bhadaur House, Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                          …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh. Vishal Kumar Dua, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Raju Chopra, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Succinctly put, the case of the complainant is that he opened a current account bearing No.915020014363938 with the OP bank. At the time of opening the account, the complainant told the OP that he wanted to open an account with a limit of Rs.10,000/- minimum balance. The employee of the OP obtained his signature on the account opening form which was filled by them. The complainant deposited the amount in the account, but the OP bank never issued any passbook. On 19.11.2016, the complainant deposited Rs.48,000/- in his account. On 17.03.2017, when the complainant enquired about his balance, he was told that there was zero balance whereas the complainant presumed that there must be  a balance at least of Rs.38,000/- in his account. The complainant further came to know that the entire amount has been wrongly deducted by the OP bank without any rhyme or reason. The complainant gave written request to the Manager of the OP, who assured that the amount should be credited in the account of the complainant, but it was not done. When the complainant demanded his statement of account from 01.01.2016 to 31.12.2016, it was not supplied. This amounts to deficiency of service. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,000/-   wrongly deducted and be further made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for having caused mental tension and harassment.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written filed on behalf of OP, it has been pleaded that the complainant opened the current account with minimum monthly average balance of Rs.1 Lac. Since the complainant failed to maintain the minimum monthly average balance of Rs.1 Lac as per terms and conditions despite SMS message sent to him, the OP debited his account with charges for non-maintenance of monthly minimum balance. The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In his evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Amandeep Sethi, Branch Head of OP along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R32 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through records.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OP has contended that the complaint is without any merit as the complainant failed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.1,00,000/- with the result that he made himself liable for payment of minimum balance charges. The counsel for the OP has further referred to the account opening form Ex. R1 in which the account in question is stated to be a  current account and the account has been opened in the name of M/s. Rai Property Dealer  by the complainant in the capacity of sole proprietor. The counsel for the OP has further referred to Ex. R3 which is schedule of charges and in the Ex. R3 also, the complainant is shown to have opted for a balance of Rs.1,00,000/-.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is an illiterate person and all the forms were got filled by the officials of the OP bank. the complainant is a small businessman with a nominal turnover. Therefore, it could not have been expected of the complainant to maintain an average minimum balance of Rs.1,00,000/-., The counsel for the complainant has further contended that this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP and it must be made to refund the charges imposed on account of non maintenance of minimum balance.

8.                We have weighed the above contentions of the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.

9.                No doubt in the account opening form, the business of the complainant is referred to as property dealer business, but from the  facts and circumstances of the case, it is amply clear that the complainant is a small businessman. In the statement of account Ex. R2, the opening balance is mentioned as Rs.1,35,000/- and thereafter, there is a withdrawal of Rs.1,20,000/- on 28.07.2015. There is no heavy entry of either deposit or withdrawal. In the same statement of account for the period from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017, there is a cash deposit of Rs.48,000/- on 19.11.2016  and subsequent to that, there is a withdrawal transaction of Rs.24,000/- on 22.11.2016 and apart from that there is no substantial entry. In the given set of circumstances, it is clear that the complainant, if at all, is a small business man, as is evident from the transactions made in the statement of account. It has been categorically alleged by the complainant that the account opening form was filled by the officials of the bank.  Though the terms and conditions Ex. R3, are purported to have been signed by the complainant, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was to be maintained as minimum balance seems to have been filled by the officials of the OP. A person who has not deposited more than 48,000/- at one time after the opening of the account, cannot be expected to maintain a minimum average balance of rs.1,00,000/- per month. Therefore, in our considered view, the imposition of charges on account of not maintaining average balance is clearly an unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and can also be termed as deficiency of service. In these circumstances, the OP bank ought to be held liable to refund Rs.38,000/- along with interest.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OP will refund a sum of Rs.38,000/- to the complainant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. The complainant is further held entitled to compensation and litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) from OPs. Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the orders. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.09.2021.

Gobind Ram.