M.P. Srivastava                           Vs                        Axis Bank Ltd.

                None has been appearing on behalf of the Complainant  

since 03.03.2014.  Notice for pairavi issued to him vide dispatch

No. 11494 dated  13.10.2016 for 17.11.2016 has been received back with postal report “addressee  expired”.  None has appeared on behalf of the Complainant even thereafter. We presume that the post report is  correct.        

                Even otherwise as per the  averments made in the

complaint  the complainant had opened a zero balance Salary Power Saving Account in the OP Bank but the  OP Bank deducted the service charges etc. and an amount of Rs. 1250/- lying in his  bank account was shown  as zero.  As according to him there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP he prayed for directing the OP to refund  Rs. 1250/- ,to pay Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony  and inconvenience etc. and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of litigation to him

          OP in the WS inter-alia stated that the complainant had opened a zero balance account  under SBSAL  under relationship 

 with his employer M/s Flight Lt. Ranjan Dhall Hospital  which was a special account  and offered the customers  with  regular direct    salary credits coming into this account ; in case salary was not credited into the said account for consecutive period  of three months  the account would  cease  to fit  for benefit of Salary Power Scheme  account and   treated  as normal saving  account and consequently all charges  would be levied  as per the normal saving accounts.  The  complainant  executed and furnished documents in this regard; that his last salary  was credited  in his account  on 16.01.2009 and thereafter  no salary was credited  in  his account between  17.01.2009 to 25.12.2009 and hence his Salary Power Account  was treated as normal saving account since July, 2009 and consequently deductions made.

          In nutshell we observe that complainant did not lead any evidence to rebut this fact.  Hence no deficiency in service was proved on the part of the OP.      

In view of the above discussion we dismiss the Complaint  with no order as to cost.  A copy be also sent to the parties through speed post. 

The file be consigned to the record room.

 03.05.2017