Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 220.
Instituted on : 10.04.2017.
Decided on : 19.03.2019.
Sh.Ramesh Kumar s/o Sh. Charanjeet age 61 years, R/o H.No.446, Ward No.1, Bada Paana, Near Kutia Baba Brahmadass, Kalanaur, Rohtak, Mb. 9416287286.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Axis Bank, Delhi Road, opposite Old Sessions Court, Rohtak through Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Delhi Road, Rohtak.
- Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Delhi Road, Opposite Old Sessions Court, Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Vinod Dhawan Advocate for the complainant.
Ms. Loveleen N. Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant is having Kisan Credit Card Account no.913030016521393 with the opposite party. That on 21.05.2016 complainant had outstanding loan amount of Rs.426473.9/- and he had paid the amount o Rs.426500/- on 13.06.2016 and there was amount of Rs.26.1/- in advance in the account of complainant. That opposite parties have wrongly charged Rs.300/- as service tax on 15.10.2016, Rs.2000/- on account of consolidate charges, Rs.4235/- on account of interest on 01.11.2016, Rs.345/- on 07.11.2016 on account of cheque charges and Rs.213/- on 25.01.2017 on account of interest. Opposite parties also charged Rs.3117/- from the account of complainant on account of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana without the application of complainant. That opposite parties have wrongly charged total Rs.10210.04/- from the complainant. Complainant requested the opposite parties to refund the alleged amount but to no effect. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund Rs.10210/- alongwith interest, compensation and litigation expenses as explained in the relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their reply has submitted that it is correct that on 21.05.2016 outstanding amount in the loan account of complainant was Rs.426473.9/- but it is submitted that on the said amount, interest was added only upto 1.5.2016 and further interest from 2.5.2016 was also payable by the complainant. The deposit of amount by the complainant is a matter of record. That the account of complainant was in operation and as such service tax of Rs.300/- was rightly added in his loan account and consolidated charges of Rs.2000/- were also rightly added on 15.10.2016 and interest from 2.5.2016 to 1.11.2016 was also righty and legally added amounting to Rs.4235/- and cheque charges of Rs.345/- were also legally added in the loan account and Rs.213/- were added on account of interest from 2.11.2016 to 24.01.2017. All the amounts have been rightly and legally added in the loan account of complainant as per bank agreement. The crop insurance was also done as per instructions issued by the Haryana Govt. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and dismissal of complaint has been sought.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.PW1/A, documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 and closed his evidence on dated 30.08.2018. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence on dated 03.12.2018.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. Through this complaint, the complainant leveled allegations on the respondent that they have wrongly charged service tax Rs.300/- consolidated charges Rs.2000/-, interest amount Rs.4235/- from 25.01.16 to 01.11.2016, Rs.345/- as stock payment charges regarding cheque no.18503 and Rs.213/- as interest. We have perused all the relevant documents placed on record by the complainant as well as the respondents. As per the respondent they have rightly charged Rs.2000/- as consolidated charges and Rs.300/- as service tax upon the consolidated charges Rs.2000/-. To prove this fact they have placed on record Annexure RA. As per the respondent the complainant has signed Annexure-RA to the effect that the bank can charge account service charges as Rs.2000/- but the respondent officials failed to place on record any document that this amount has been charged by the bank as per the instructions of Reserve Bank of India. Meaning thereby this amount has been charged from the complainant on higher side or without any basis. Regarding the amount of Rs.4235/- the respondent officials have submitted that the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.426500/- on dated 13.06.2016. On that day the balance amount was Rs.26.1/- meaning thereby the complainant had paid all the principal and interest amount towards the bank. As per the respondent the amount of Rs.4235/- was charged as per the instructions of RBI and this amount includes interest from 02.05.2016 to 13.06.2016 but this amount was charged on dated 01.11.2016 because the interest was charged half yearly as per RBI guidelines or as per the agreement with the complainant. Meaning thereby this amount was rightly charged by the respondent officials from the complainant. Now come upon the amount regarding stop payment charges to cheque bearing no.18503 dated 07.11.2016, we come to the conclusion that complainant has not placed on record any document to prove that this cheque has not been issued by the complainant till date. Meaning thereby this amount has been rightly charged. Now about the charges of Rs.3117.04/-, this amount was charged as per the instructions of the Central Government and the complainant has not placed any document to prove that he has already submitted his application that he does not want to cover his crop under the insurance policy of Govt. under Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana. Hence this amount has been rightly charged from the complainant. Lastly we come upon the amount charged by the opposite party on 25.01.2016 i.e. Rs.213/-.This amount has been charged by the opposite party on account of interest on the amount which was due against the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we come to the conclusion that opposite party has wrongly charged Rs.2000/- as service charges and Rs.300/- as service tax. As such there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. We hereby partly allow the complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.2300/-(Rupees two thousand three hundred only) illegally charged from the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 10.04.2017 till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
13.03.2019.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…………………………………
Ved Pal, Member.
………………………………..
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
