Delhi

StateCommission

A/542/2017

BRAJESH KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

AXIS BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

Date of Decision: 03.01.2018

 

 

First Appeal No.542/2017

(Arising out of the order dated 06.03.2017 passed in Complaint Case No.179/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –II, New Delhi)

 

Shri Brajesh Kumar, ,

C/o Shri Ramesh Chandra,

House No.D-88, Third Floor,

Katwaria Sarai, Hauz Khas,

New Delhi                                                                           …Appellant

 

Versus

 

Axis Bank Ltd.,

K-12, Green Park Main,

New Delhi -110016.

                                                                              ….Respondent

 

 

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Ms. Salma Noor, Member

 

 

1.  Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

    

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), wherein challenge is made to order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(II),  New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum) in CC No.179/2009 by which the Ld. District Forum has dismissed the complaint.
2. The complaint was filed in the year 2009 by the appellant/complainant. The appellant/complainant was not appearing before the District Forum since 16.12.2014. Thereafter, the District Forum issued a notice for Pairavi to him on 15.12.2016 for 01.02.2017. However, despite service of the notice, appellant/complainant did not appear before the District Forum. Thereafter, the District Forum considered the complaint as well as material on record and dismissed the complaint by observing as under:

 

“      Since none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant” since 16.12.14, we directed issuance of notice for pairavi to him on 15.12.16 for 01.02.17.

       Notice issued to the complainant vide dispatch No.126 dated 20.01.17 has been personally served upon him on 27.01.17 (track report filed on the record which we mark as Mark ‘A’).

       None was also present on behalf of the complainant on that day and none is also present on his behalf today as well.

       We have gone through the file very carefully. The dispute between the parties is with regard to reversal of the amount of Rs.113/- which according to the complainant had been deducted as Debit Card Annual Charges by the OP bank though the OP has reverse the amount of Rs.575.88p in his account after receiving the legal notice.

       On the other hand, the case of the OP is that the OP had reversed the average quarterly balance charges of Rs.650/- in the account of the complainant after receipt of the legal notice from him. It is submitted on behalf of the OP that the charges of Rs.113/- were levied on 31.05.08 for debit card charges because the average balance in the account of the complainant went to below the required balance of Rs.500/-.

       It is the case of the complainant that he had to maintain the average minimum balance of Rs.500/- in his account. Therefore, in our considered opinion the complainant has even otherwise not proved any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.”

      

 

3. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the only grievance of the appellant/complainant in the complaint case was about the reversal of amount of Rs.113/-, which according to the appellant/complainant had been deducted as Debit Card Annual Charges by the respondent/OP Bank. His further case was that later on respondent/OP had reversed the amount of Rs.575.88p on receiving legal notice from him. Respondent/OP had given explanation before the Ld. District Forum that average balance in the account of the appellant/complainant went below Rs.500/-, which was required minimum balance to be maintained and due to the said reason, the charges were levied.
4. The appellant/complainant has challenged the impugned on the ground that District Forum did not consider the complete material on record. When the reversal entry has already been made in the account of the appellant/complainant, the appellant/complainant is left with no grievance. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that Ld. District Forum has not considered the material on record.
5. The impugned order is a speaking order. We do not find any illegality in the same. Appeal stands dismissed in limine.
6. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum.  Record of District Forum be also sent back forthwith.

              File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Membe