Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/18/2019

Jugal Kishore Yadav - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Jaiswal Adv.

25 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	18 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	10.01.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	25.11.2022

 

 

 

 

 

Jugal Kishore Yadav s/o Sh.Ramashish Yadav, Resident of H.No.17, near Behari Garments, Burail, Sector 45, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

 

2]  Sh.Mandeep Singh, Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

 

3]  Ms.Puja Thakur, Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

 

4]  Ms.Priyanka, Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.

 

5]  Sh.Durgesh, Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh.{Deleted vide order dated 14.2.2019}

6]  Sh.Jitender, Axis Bank, Sector 32-C, Chandigarh. .{Deleted vide order dated 14.2.2019}

 ….. Opposite Parties

7]  Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Regional Director.

 

    ….. Proforma Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Amit Jaiswal, Adv. for complainant.

   None for OPs No.1 to 4.

   OPs No.5 & 6 deleted

   OP No.7 Exparte.

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

         The case of the complainant briefly is that he is distributor of ‘Verka’ and holding a Current Account No.916020021649875 with OP Bank since 2016.  It is stated that the OP Bank deducted consolidated charges from the said current account of complainant during the period from Dec., 2016 till April, 2017 totaling to a sum of Rs.14,965/- (Ann.C-1).  The complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs, who instead of settling the issue, got opened another current account of complainant bearing No.917020054855802 on the pretext that now the said problem would not occur. To the surprise of complainant, the OP Bank again started deducting consolidated chares totaling to Rs.13,896/- from newly opened current account of complainant bearing No.917020054855802 (Ann.C-2). The matter was again brought to the notice of OP Bank, who stated that the problem is occurring due to some problem in updating of ‘Verka’ code in the account and again convinced the complainant that in another account, this problem would not occur and accordingly open yet another current account No.917020066764376 in the name of complainant.  To the shock of complainant, even in this current account No.917020066764376, the OPs deducted consolidated charges on different dates totaling to Rs.21,298.57 (Ann.C-3). The complainant again brought this matter to the notice of OP Bank but they did nothing. It is pleaded that on every occasion, whenever the complainant agitated the wrong deduction of amount from his accounts, the OP Bank make excuse of non-updating of Verka Code.  It is also pleaded that the complainant is semi-literate man and agreed to open current accounts as advised by the OP Bank from time to time and also acted accordingly, but still the OP Bank illegally deducted amount from his accounts and never reverse the same despite many requests, followed by legal notice (Ann.C-4).  Hence, this complaint has been preferred.

 

2]       The OP Bank – OP No.1 to 4 has filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant was charged for not maintaining minimum balance; excess deposit of cash amount then permitted limit, SMS charges, cheque return charges in Account NO.916020021649875. It is submitted that the complainant, when approached was informed that the charges have been levied on him for not maintaining his current account balance and was advised either to maintain his account or to open another account.  Accordingly, the complainant opened new account No.917020054855802 (CANOR) on 23.8.2017.  It is submitted that OP Bank offered CANOR Current Account to Verka vendors for a certain period in which they were given higher cash deposit limit, provided they maintained Label Code of Verka in the account opening form.  It is also submitted that during the opening of account, Verka code was not mentioned in the form and as a result his account was debited with cash deposit charges.  The account of complainant bearing No.917020054855802 (CANOR) was charged for not maintaining minimum balance, excess deposit of cash then permissible limit at home branch, SMS Charges penal charges etc. and later the complainant closed the account.  It is stated that the code was not updated in the account due to the mistake of complainant as he did not fill the same in the opening form at the time of opening of account.  Thereafter, the complainant again opened another CANOR Account bearing NO.917020066764376 with OP Bank on 28.9.2017.  However, even in this account, the complainant failed to maintain minimum account balance and as such has been charged for that apart from charges towards SMS, cheque issuance etc.  It is pleaded that even till today, the complainant is doing transactions in the remaining two accounts and still having a lien of Rs.43,977.48/-. The complainant was never promised to revert the consolidated charges.  It is also pleaded that code was not updated in the account due to the mistake of complainant as he did not fill the same in the opening form at the time of opening of present account.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

         OPs No.5 & 6 have been deleted from the array of parties per order dated 14.2.2019.

 

         OP No.7 did not turn up despite service of notice sent through regd. Post, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 20.3.2019.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OP made in reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the Ld.Counsel for the complainant and have perused the entire record including written arguments.

 

6]       It is undisputed that the complainant, a distributor of ‘Verka’, is having three current accounts with OP Bank wherein the OP Bank have charged amounts on various heads under consolidated charges on the ground that the complainant failed to maintain minimum balance and he also failed to mention/update the code in the account as he did not fill it in the account opening form.  We do not find any merit in the plea of the OP bank.  In our opinion the OP Bank should have updated the Verka Code of complainant while opening his current account. The uploading & updating of code against current account of a customer is the domain & responsibility of the OP Bank and for that the complainant/consumer cannot be made to suffer. Therefore, the act & conduct of the OP Bank in opening three current accounts one after another in the name of complainant, deducting charges from said account under consolidated charges without prior intimation to complainant clearly amounts to deficiency in service. 

 

7]       It has been gathered from the record that the complainant left no stone unturned to get the matter resolved at the end of OP Bank before filing the present complaint, but the OP bank did not pay any heed, forcing the complainant to indulge into avoidable litigation.

 

8]       Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the OP Bank/OPs No.1 to 4 remained deficient in their service, which causes loss and harassment to the complainant. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed against OP No.1 Bank with direction to reverse/refund all the charges/amount deducted from all the three current accounts in question pertaining to the complainant and also to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the causing harassment & agony along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-

         This order shall be complied with by the OP No.1 Bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.15000/- apart from above relief.

 

9]       The complaint qua OP No.2 to 4 & 7 stands dismissed.

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th November, 2022                                                     sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER