DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.459 of 21-10-2013

Decided on 21-03-2014

Shree Ganesh Tanker Transport Company, Hazi Rattan Link Road, Near Bathinda Chemicals, Bathinda, through its Proprietor Kamal Kumar aged about 50 years S/o Chander Bhan S/o Gauri Shankar R/o 2113, Aggarsain Nagar, 2nd Sri Ganganagar.

........Complainant

Versus

Axis Bank, Pocket No.6, MC Building No.2089, TP Scheme, The Mall, Bathinda-151005, through its Branch Manager.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite party: Sh.Rajneesh Kumar, counsel for the opposite party.

ORDER

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he carries the business of transportation to earn his livelihood at Bathinda and opened 0% current account bearing No.242010200009133 with the opposite party in the year 2009. At the time of opening the abovesaid account the opposite party obtained the signatures of the complainant on many unfilled and blank forms, without disclosing their contents and told him that his account would open with 0% balance. The opposite party used to open accounts of various kinds including 0% current account, in which there is no requirement of deposit. The complainant opened the abovesaid account under the influence of the agent of the opposite party. The complainant came to know on dated 7.4.2013 from Sri Ganganagar Branch of the opposite party that the amount of Rs.1325/- per month are being deducted from his account on account of less balance w.e.f. 23.10.2010. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the opposite party raised the amount of 0% account to Rs.1 lac account minimum suomoto. The opposite party neither got any consent nor gave any notice about raising of the minimum balance in the account or sent any account statement of account to the complainant. The complainant wrote many letters and sent those through the registered post to the opposite party on dated 9.4.2013, 14.5.2013, 31.5.2013, 14.6.2013, 17.6.2013 to refund the deductions made by it, at his back. The complainant also wrote many letters to the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India on dated 23.7.2013, 4.9.2013 and 23.9.2013 and sent e-mails to the higher officials of the bank, but nothing has been done. The complainant is entitled for the deductions made by the opposite party since 23.10.2010 till date with interest. Hence the present complaint filed by the complainant to seek the directions of this Forum to the opposite party to refund the deductions made by it from his account since 23.10.2010 till date alongwith cost and compensation.

2. The opposite party after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and pleaded that the complainant has got opened the abovesaid current account on dated 14.3.2009 under scheme code CAIRT (Current Account for Inland Road Transport) with zero balance facility. The officials of the opposite party have not obtained the signatures of the complainant on any blank printed forms as alleged by him. In the month of September, 2009, the AMB requirement for CAIRT account was revised from zero balance to Rs.1 lac across all the Metro/Urban localities and centralized communication was sent across to all the customers including the complainant to that effect and he was fully aware of the said fact regarding the AMB requirement of Rs.1 lac revised by the bank w.e.f. September, 2009. The complainant did not maintain the requisite balance in the abovesaid account as per the revised AMB requirement, as such AMB non-maintenance charges have been levied on his account per month from the month of October, 2010 till May, 2013 and the complainant has regularly been transacting in his account and continuously aware of the account balance. The monthly account statements have also been sent to the customers including the complainant through the regular post to his mailing address, which is evident that he had perused his account details, but he has not raised any objection till the month of April, 2013. The opposite party further pleaded that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case Archana M. Kamath Vs. Canara Bank & Another, reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 1694 2003(51) BLJR 693, the bank has got every right to revise the same without the consent of the customers and is not bound to give any prior notice to the customers.

3. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. Admittedly, the complainant got opened the current account bearing No.242010200009133 under scheme code CAIRT (Current Account for Inland Road Transport) with zero balance facility with the opposite party on dated 14.3.2009.

6. The disputed facts of the parties are that later on the minimum requirement for maintaining the balance in account of the complainant was raised to Rs.1 lac from '0' % balance facility without his consent and without issuing him any notice, this fact came to the knowledge of the complainant on dated 7.4.2013 from Sri Ganganagar Branch of the opposite party that the amount of Rs.1325/- per month are being deducted from his account on account of less balance w.e.f. 23.10.2010. The complainant wrote many letters sent through the registered post to the opposite party on dated 9.4.2013, 14.5.2013, 31.5.2013, 14.6.2013, 17.6.2013 and also wrote many letters to the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India on dated 23.7.2013, 4.9.2013 and 23.9.2013 and requested the opposite party to refund the deductions made from his account since 23.10.2010 till date.

7. On the other hand the submission of the opposite party is that the complainant has got opened the abovesaid current account on dated 14.3.2009 under scheme code CAIRT (Current Account for Inland Road Transport) with zero balance facility. In the month of September, 2009, the AMB requirement for CAIRT account was revised from zero balance to Rs.1 lac across all the Metro/Urban localities and centralized communication was sent across to all the customers including the complainant to that effect and he was fully aware of the said fact regarding the AMB requirement of Rs.1 lac revised by the bank w.e.f. September, 2009. The complainant did not maintain the requisite balance in the abovesaid account as per the revised AMB requirement, as such AMB non-maintenance charges have been levied on his account per month from the month of October, 2010 till May, 2013 and the complainant has regularly been transacting in his account and continuously aware of the account balance. The monthly account statements have also been sent to the customers including the complainant through the regular post to his mailing address.

8. The opposite party has referred the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Archana M. Kamath Vs. Canara Bank & Another, reported in AIR 2003 (SC) 1694 2003(51) BLJR 693 with utmost regard and humility to the above mentioned authority, have distinguishable facts and circumstances. The opposite party has taken the legal objection that the complainant has opened the account for the commercial purpose, whereas in the very first paragraph of his complaint, the complainant has specifically mentioned that he carries the business of transportation to earn his livelihood at Bathinda and opened 0% balance current account bearing No.242010200009133 in the year 2009. In this regard the support can be sought by the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Canara Bank Vs. Jain Motor Trading Company, 2014 (I) CPC 182, wherein it has been held:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Sections 2 (1) (g) & 21 (a) (ii)-Banking service-Commercial purpose-Consumer-Companies dealing in commercial matters are not per se excluded from consumer jurisdiction unless there is a direct involvement of elements of generation of profits or resale....”

9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that '0' balance limit has been increased to Rs.1 lac without any intimation to the complainant, he wrote many letters in this regard to the opposite party. A perusal of Ex.C16 shows that the account of the complainant was opened with '0' balance and from 23.10.2010, the consolidation charges for account have been started debiting from his account on the pretext of non-maintaining of the amount to Rs.1 lac as minimum maintenance balance amount. A perusal of Ex.C16 shows the Consolidation Charges for A/c on dated 23.10.2010, Rs.1325/-; 29.1.2011, Rs.1327/-; 26.2.2011, Rs.1325/-; 23.4.2011, Rs.2583.91/-; 27.6.2011, Rs.1325/-; 23.7.2011, Rs.1325/-; 27.8.2011, Rs.1325/-; 24.9.2011, Rs.1325/-; 29.10.2011, Rs.1325/-; 26.11.2011, Rs.1325/-; 26.12.2011, Rs.1325/-; 30.1.2012, Rs.1325/-; 25.2.2012, Rs.1343.13/-; 24.3.2012, Rs.1467.78/-; 28.4.2012, Rs.1422.50/-; 26.5.2012, Rs.1342.80/-; 23.6.2012, Rs.1325/-; 28.7.2012, Rs.1325/-; 27.8.2012, Rs.1325/-; 24.9.2012, Rs.1525/-; 27.10.2012, Rs.1342.80/-; 24.11.2012, Rs.925/-; 29.12.2012, Rs.1325/-; 28.1.2013, Rs.1342.80/-; 23.2.2013, Rs.408.23/-; 25.3.2013, Rs.1056.96/- and 27.4.2013, Rs.2634.41/-. Thus the opposite party has deducted the amount from the account of the complainant for non-maintaining the minimum balance in his account. Nothing has been placed on file by the opposite party except the affidavit, Ex.OP1/1 and Current Account Open Form, Ex.OP1/2, to show that it has ever informed the complainant about the reviewing of the AMB requirement to Rs.1 lac as minimum balance from 0% balance, thus this fact has not ever been intimated/informed or brought to the knowledge of the complainant by the opposite party that AMB of Rs.1 lac was revised by it from the month of September, 2009. Moreover no document in this regard has been placed on file by the opposite party. The opposite party has specifically mentioned in its written statement that the monthly account statements have also been sent to the customers including the complainant via regular post to his registered mailing address', but nothing in this regard has been placed on file by the opposite party as there are no postal receipts through which these have been sent to the complainant, which proves the version of the complainant that he came to know about the revised AMB to Rs.1 lac on dated 7.4.2013 and thereafter he has been writing letters to the opposite party to refund the deductions made from his account made by it.

10. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint is accepted with Rs.5000/- as cost and compensation against the opposite party. The opposite party is directed to credit the amount deducted from the account of the complainant on account of non-maintaining of the minimum balance of Rs.1 lac since 23.10.2010 till 25.5.2013 in the account of the complainant and at the same time the complainant in future will maintain the minimum balance in his account as per the requirement of the bank i.e opposite party.

11. The compliance of this order be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

12. In case of non-compliance, the interest @ 9% per annum will yield on the amount to be credited in the account of the complainant till realization.

13. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

21-03-2014

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member