Punjab

Sangrur

CC/916/2015

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Mahesh Satija

19 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                     

                            

                                                                   Complaint no. 916                                                                                              

                                                                    Instituted on:  27.08.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    19.05.2016

 

Paramjit Singh son of Ranjit Singh resident of village  Badrukhan Tehsil and District Sangrur.

…. Complainant.      

 

                                         Versus

 

1.     Axis Bank Limited, SCF No.16,17 &18 Ground floor and Basement, SCF No.19 ground Floor, kaula park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

 

2.     Axis Bank Limited Regd. Office" TRISHUL' 3rd Floor Opposite Samartheshwar temple, near Law Garden, Ellisbridge Ahmedabad. 380006 through its authorized signatory.

             ….Opposite parties.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Mahesh Satija Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :    Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.                    

 

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.          Paramjit Singh complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on the request of OP No.1, he opened an account bearing number 910010006353707 of  Rs.2700/- with OPs on  3.3.2010.  As per term and conditions of OPs, the complainant maintained the said account with minimum balance of Rs.2500/-but despite that an amount of Rs. 92.70 as service charges and  Rs.750/-  as consolidation charges were deducted  on 24.09.2012. Further, the OPs deducted the service tax as well as consolidated charges on 25.01.2014 without any notice and intimation to the complainant.  Earlier, the OP no.1 deducted the amount of Rs.765/- as consolidation charges and Rs.94.55 as service charges from the account of Amandeep Singh who is friend of the complainant. He also filed a complaint  in this respect which was decided in favour of Amandeep Singh on 3.3.2015. The complainant visited the office of the OPs number of times with a request to refund the said amount but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)   OPs be directed to credit amount  of Rs.92.70  and Rs. 750/- deducted as service charges and consolidated charges respectively alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of deduction,

ii)  OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.40000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee.

2.          In reply filed by the OPs, it has been stated that the complainant was required to maintain minimum balance of Rs.2500/- and Rs.5000/- as alleged in the complaint.  As per rules  and regulations  of the bank, the sum of Rs.5000/-  was required to be maintained as AQB in Metro Urban  Cities  and the sum of Rs.2500/- was required to be maintained  in Semi Urban Cities  and the sum of Rs.1000/- was to be maintained in rural areas in SBEZY account.  The bank had revised the above said amounts w.e.f 15th June , 2012 and now in Metro Urban areas  the AQB should be Rs.10,000/-  and in Semi Urban Area the amount  should be Rs.5000/-  and in rural areas, it should be Rs.2500/- .  This fact was told to the complainant by the bank.  The OPs also informed all the customers on net also. In all the ATMs notice to this effect was displayed.  Even the  Central Office of the OPs informed the customers through SMS also. The complainant failed to  maintain the required AQB of Rs.5000/- and as such the amount mentioned in the complaint was deducted.  The complainant  made  more than 10 transactions  in a month and five transactions  were made in ATMs of others  as such  Rs.17.80  paise were deducted  towards  ATM withdrawal charges. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

3.          The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

4.          After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents submitted by the parties, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the deduction of charges from the account of the complainant. The complainant has alleged that illegal charges have been deducted from his account. We have gone through the document Ex.C-1 which is a statement of account of the complainant and we find that the illegal charges have been deducted on 24.09.2012 and the balance maintained by the complainant is more than Rs.2500/-. We have also gone through the reply of the OPs and as per clause 12, the OPs have submitted that the complainant had agreed that " I/ We agree to maintain a quarterly  average balance of Rs.2500/- in the account failing which the bank may deduct charges  as per rules  prescribed in schedule of charges".  But in the subsequent paras the OPs have submitted that the amount of average quarterly balance was increased from 2500/- to 5000/- . But from the evidence placed on record, we do not find any evidence in corroboration of the version of the OPs whereas whatever the complainant has submitted has been admitted as per clause number 12 that the complainant maintained quarterly average balance of Rs.2500/-.  The Ops have not placed on record any evidence in support of their version  that the ATM notices to this effect has been displayed and the SMS have also been sent to the complainant. So, in the absence of any reliance and cogent evidence we are unable to rely upon the version submitted by the OPs.  As such, we find that  the OPs have illegally debited the charges and are deficient in service as there is no evidence on record that the OPs have ever informed to the complainant with regard to the increase in the amount of average quarterly balance to be maintained by the complainant and accordingly we find that the OPs are deficient in service and accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.750/- , Rs.92.70,  Rs.2.20  and Rs.17.80  to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. We further order the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- on account of mental tension, pain agony and to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses.

5.          This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.

             Announced.

             May 20, 2016.

 

 

 

     ( Sarita Garg)        ( K.C.Sharma)     (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                        

Member                 Member                    President

 

BBS/-