C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/13                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             :  Sudhir Chandra Ghosh

Vill. Late Haladhar Ghosh

Boubazar, P.O. Krishnagar,

Sri Durga Colony Bi Lane Daspara,

P.S. Kotwali, Dist. Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP         : Bank Manager,

State Bank of India,

Krishnagar Branch,

Krishnagar, Nadia,

Sadar Hospital (Opposite)

Dist. Nadia.

 

            

PRESENT              :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU                     PRESIDENT

             :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY              MEMBER

         

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    29th May , 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

The complainant, Sudhir Chandra Ghosh, a senior citizen by filing the instant complaint has stated that he has a pension account vide No. 11256289703 in the State Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch.  Without his knowledge Rs. 300/- was 

2

deducted from his pension account.  He tried to know the reason of deducting that amount from the Bank Authority, but in vein.  By filing this case he has prayed for return of that Rs. 300/- and knowing the reason for deducting that amount. 

The State Bank of India, Krishnagar Branch has appeared in the case and has replied stating the ground of deduction of Rs. 300/- from the pension account of the complainant.  The State Bank of India has admitted that the complainant has a savings Bank account No. 11256289703.   Without receiving the cheque facility the minimum balance to be maintained in the Account is Rs. 250/-.  The record shows that on 28.11.07 to 28.12.07 the balance remained Rs. 230.97 only, which is below Rs. 250/-.   Thus the penalty, deduction of Rs. 300/- has been imposed as per rules of the Reserve Bank of India.  

 

In view of the above facts and circumstances the following points are taken for proper adjudication.

Point No.1:        Whether there caused any deficiency in service on the part of the          OP?

Point No.2:        Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for sake of convenience and for the purpose of avoiding needless repetitions. 

The statement of account filed by the opposite party reveals that on 28.11.07 the total balance in that pension account was Rs. 3730.97.   On 28.11.07 Rs. 3500/- was withdrawn by the pensioner himself and the balance remains Rs. 230.97.   

 

3

Perused the letter vide No. CM/55/23 dtd. 20.04.09 which reflects that in case of pension account (a) minimum balance to be maintained in a cheque facility account ...... Rs. 500/- (b) minimum balance to be maintained in a non-cheque facility ...... Rs. 250/-.   Failure to maintain minimum balance would attract a penalty of Rs. 300/- per quarter to be charged on the last date of a calender quarter.

From the balance-sheet supplied by the OP it transpires that the minimum balance on 28.11.07 becomes Rs. 230.97 only.

As the pensioner did not maintain the minimum balance in his pension account as per rule, the deduction of Rs. 300/- was taken place.

In view of the above observation we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

The case thus fails.

Hence, 

Ordered,

That the instant case is dismissed on contest without any cost.

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by 1 month 5 days.

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

  (D.K. Basu)

    President         

C.D.R.F., Nadia

        (K. Mukhopadhyay)           (D.K. Basu)

Member             President            

           C.D.R.F., Nadia      C.D.R.F., Nadia