DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Consumer Complaint No.: CC/154/2017

Date of Institution : 07.11.2017

Date of Decision : 30.07.2019

Sh. Hari Chand Sole Proprietor of M/s Kanpur Watch Company, Sadar Bazaar, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala.     

           …Complainant

Versus

Axis Bank Limited, Branch Near Gaddakhana Chowk, Barnala, through its Branch Manager, Barnala.   

        …Opposite Party

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Present: Sh. Rajiv Goyal counsel for the complainant.

Sh. AK Jindal counsel for the opposite party. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Kuljit Singh : President

2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member

 

(ORDER BY TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU PRESIDENT):

  The complainant namely Hari Chand has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (As amended up to date) against Axis Bank Limited, Barnala. (hereinafter referred as opposite party).  

2. The brief facts of the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party as he opened a current Account with the opposite party bearing No. 916020006397308 w.e.f 12.2.2016 to 22.7.2017. The complainant is running the business of watches and mobile set at Barnala. It is further alleged that as per the statement of account issued the opposite party has deducted the amount from the current account of the complainant on the amount deposited by the complainant and on the amount being withdrawn by the complainant from the said current account without any reason and without informing him. 

3. It is further alleged that when the complainant on 16.3.2017 went to the branch of the opposite party to close the said account then the Branch Manager of the opposite party requested that the account should not be closed and amount already deducted from the account of the complainant shall be deposited in his account and in future no deduction shall be made from his account so he deposited Rs. 24,000/- on the same day in his current account. But thereafter the opposite party continued deducting the amount from the said account of the complainant. 

4. It is further alleged that at the time of opening of current account the opposite party got the signatures of the complainant on the proforma containing the terms and conditions of the current account. When complainant asked the opposite party regarding deduction of amount from current account the opposite party stated that complainant should keep minimum amount in current account and then the amount will not be deducted from the account of the complainant. It is further alleged that at the directions of the opposite party the complainant again deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- on 7.6.2016 but even thereafter the opposite party deducting the amount from the account of the complainant till 22.7.2017 which is against the rules and regulations of the bank. The complainant approached the opposite party regarding deduction of said amount from his account, on which the opposite party assured the complainant that the deducted amount shall be deposited in the account of the complainant and  they further will not deduct any amount from his account. But even after the opposite party deducted the amount from the complainant. The complainant in this regard even served a legal notice dated 4.10.2017 upon the opposite party but to no effect. The act of the opposite party is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

1) The opposite party may be directed to pay the amount deducted by the opposite party bank from the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 14,767.60 paise with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of damage caused to the complainant. 

2) To pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment etc. 

3) To pay Rs. 10,000/- on account of costs of proceedings. 

4) Any other fit and proper relief to which the complainant found entitle may be granted.    

5. After service of notice of this complaint, opposite party  appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and complaint is frivolous, vexatious and liable to be dismissed under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act. The opposite parties further objected that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute involved in the present complaint as it is not a consumer dispute. It is further objected by the opposite parties that the dispute raised in the present complaint is outside the purview of the Act  and present complaint is baseless and abuse of process of law to harass the opposite parties. It is further objected by the opposite parties that the present complaint has not been verified as per law.    

6. On merits, it is admitted by the opposite party that complainant opened his firm's current account with the opposite party bank and at the time of opening of said current account the complainant himself agreed to this fact that he maintains Rs. 25,000/- in his current account and signed the opening forms containing these instructions in favour of opposite party bank. But the complainant fails to maintain the agreed balance so computer automatically deducted the charges on account of non maintenance of average balance. The employees of the opposite party never assured the complainant that the amount already deducted from the account of the complainant shall be deposited in his current account. Even when complainant approached the opposite party, the opposite party clearly told the complainant that as per terms the complainant is bound to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 25,000/- in the said account but complainant failed to maintain minimum balance in his current account due to which the computer automatically deducted the charges. It is further alleged that the complainant himself is a negligent person and failed to maintain minimum balance in his firm's current account. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and they prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs. 

7. The complainant in order to support his complaint has tendered in evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1, affidavit of Vishal Kumar as Ex.C-2, copy of monthly free limits as Ex.C-3, copy of account statement as Ex.C-4, copy of notice dated 4.10.2017 Ex.C-5, postal receipt as Ex.C-6, copy of legal notice reply dated 11.10.2017 as Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

8. On the other hand the opposite party to support their version have tendered into evidence affidavit of Dimple Kumar Branch Head as  Ex.OP-1, copy of charges circular in current account as Ex.OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party. 

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties have also gone through. 

10. It is admitted fact between the parties that the complainant opened his firm's current account with the opposite party bank. It is also admitted by the opposite party that the opposite party deducted the charges from the current account of the complainant on account of minimum balance. 

11. Now the main question before us whether the opposite party can deduct charges from the current account of the complainant on account of minimum balance or not ?

12. To prove the above mentioned question the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Dimple Kumar Branch Head Ex.OP-1 in which he has reiterated all the submissions as mentioned in the written version that as per terms and conditions mentioned in the account opening form the opposite party can deduct charges from the account of the complainant on account of minimum balance. He also deposed in his affidavit that this opening form is duly signed by the complainant after understanding the terms and conditions. The opposite party also tendered in evidence copy of charges detail Ex.OP-2, in which the opposite party has given detail of all the charges which have been deducted from the account of the complainant from 2-2016 to 2-2018.

13. On the other hand the complainant to rebut the plea of the opposite party tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1 in which he has reiterated all the submissions as mentioned in the complaint. He also filed copy of statement of account in question Ex.C-4 to prove the deducting of charges on account of minimum balance but deducting of charges have already been admitted by the opposite party. The complainant also filed copy of account opening form alongwith instructions i.e. Monthly Free Limits and Charges beyond Free Limits Ex.C-3 to prove the instructions regarding free limits. 

14. We have perused all these documents relied upon by both the parties. Firstly, we perused Ex.OP-2 in which the opposite party has given detail of all the charges which have been deducted from the account of the complainant. From the perusal of this document it is proved on the file that mostly the opposite party deducted the charges from the account of the complainant due to non maintenance of average monthly balance. But the opposite party also made some deductions on the basis account maintenance charges and penal tariff charges but in our view when the opposite party deducted the charges on account of non maintenance of monthly average balance then they cannot deduct the charges on the basis of account maintenance and penal tariff. 

15. Secondly, the most important document in the present case is Ex.C-3 which the complainant himself tendered in his evidence so admitted document of the complainant. In this document it is clearly mentioned that in Current Account Business Advantage the minimum balance is Rs. 25,000/- and it is also mentioned in this document that in case of non maintenance of monthly average balance the charges of Business Advantage account are Rs. 1,250/-, as this document is tendered by the complainant so complainant now cannot deny the receipt of this document. We have also perused the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C-4 and on the top of this document it is mentioned that the account of the complainant is Business Advantage account. From the perusal of these documents we are of the view that as the account of the complainant is Business Advantage Account so complainant is bound by all the terms and conditions of Business Advantage Account mentioned in Ex.C-3. So, the opposite party can deduct the charges from the account of the complainant on account of minimum balance but if they deduct the charges on this account then the opposite party cannot deduct the charges on account of account maintenance and penal tariff, for which the opposite party is deficient in providing service to the complainant. 

16. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite party is directed to refund the amount of Rs. 747/-  which has been deducted by them on account of account maintenance and penal tariff charges as per document Ex.OP-2, to the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of  filing the present complaint till actual realization. Compliance of above said order be made by opposite party within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be indexed and consigned to record room after due compliance.

  ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

30th Day of July 2019

 

 

 

            (Kuljit Singh)

           President

 

 

           (Tejinder Singh Bhangu)                Member