Haryana

Karnal

441/2013

Thambu Ram Bhardwaj S/o Chajju Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.C. Koshikish

14 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.441 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 6.11.2013

                                                                Date of decision:14.03.2017

 

Thambu Ram Bhardwaj son of Chajju Ram resident of 960/3, Gali no.3, Vikas Nagar, Kakroi Road, Sonepat, District Sonepat.

 

                                                                             ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

The Manager, Axis Bank, 3/250, Shakti Colony, Mal Road, District Karnal.

 

                                                                             ………… Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. S.C.Kaushik Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. Sanjay Singla Advocate for the Opposite party

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he had opened account no.394010100023694 in opposite party bank in the year 2007, while he was in Government service in Forest Department as Block Forest Officer. He retired from the service on 31.1.2009. At the time of opening of the account pass book was not issued to him. After retirement, he contacted the opposite party for issuance of the pass book. He was shocked to find that opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.4000/- approximately on various dates in the name of mobile banking charges, safeguard, service tax, consolidated charges, pin charges etc. without his knowledge and consent. He was issued pass book on 17.1.2011. Neither there was any instruction in the pass book nor he was told by the bank for deduction of such charges. Therefore, the deduction of the amount of Rs.3970/- from his account was illegal and clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. He got served legal notice dated 8.10.2012 upon the opposite party for crediting the said amount in his account, but the same also did not yield any result. Due to such act and conduct of the opposite party he suffered mental pain and harassment apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not come to this forum with clean hands; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant opened the account on 14.9.2007 through Divisional Forest Officer, Karnal Forest Division, Karnal being an employee of the said department. He was made aware about the said account including terms and conditions relating to various services. After duly understanding the terms and conditions and the contents of the form, he put his signatures on the form. The amounts were deducted from his account as per terms and conditions fully explained in the statement of account. An amount of Rs.990/- was debited in his account for the specific policy for one year for an assured sum of Rs.10,00,000/-which was provided to him with his consent, Rs.134.83 were debited on account of mobile banking charges service for one year which was provided to him with his consent and the service tax was debited from time to time as per guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Consolidated charges were also debited in his account since he had not intimated the bank regarding his retirement from service and as per Bank Rules once a salary amount is not credited into the account for more than three months, the special features offered under Salary Power Account shall stand withdrawn and the account shall be treated as normal saving account. An amount of Rs.56/- was debited in the account of complainant on account of duplicate pin charges since he had availed the said facility. The letter dated 27.4.2012 sent by the complainant was duly replied, vide letter dated 12.5.2012 that the amount of Rs.3970/- was rightly deducted as per Bank terms and schedule of charges for various services and there was nothing illegal on the part of the opposite party.  The factum of receiving legal notice also admitted, but it has been submitted that the said notice was replied vide letter dated 25.10.2012. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C8 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite party, affidavit of Rajit Singla Ex.OW/A and documents Ex.O1 and Ex.O2 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had opened account no. 394010100023694 in the opposite party bank on 14.9.2007. For opening of the bank account he had filled up the salary account form, the copy of which is Ex.O1. He was introduced by Divisional Forest Officer, Karnal, Forest Division. He had put Yes Mark regarding mobile banking, therefore, annual mobile banking charges were duly debited in his account. He had also availed the ATM facility as is evident from the statement of account Ex.O1 and the other facilities. Consolidated charges and service tax were also debited to his account as per guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and mentioned in the account opening form. Learned counsel for the complainant could not bring to our notice any rule or instruction according to which the opposite party had wrongly or illegally debited any of the charges in his account. The complainant had availed those services of the opposite party for which he was liable to pay alongwith service tax. Therefore, it cannot be said in any manner that the opposite party illegally deducted the amount of Rs.3970/- from his account. Under such circumstances, the complainant has failed to establish that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

7.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 14.3.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member