IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 104/09 DATED 15.05.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.M.Veer Mohan, S/o Late M.K. Murugesan, Proprietor, Mysore Ganesh Agencies, NO.60/1, Radhakrishna Nilaya, Distributor, Mangalore Ganesh Beedies, Banumaiah Square, Mysore-570024.<br /> (By Sri.N.Parameshwar, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. K.Raviprakash, Senior Manager, Bank of Baroda, Gandhi Square, Mysore.<br /> 2. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, No.26, 3rd Floor, HGS Chamber, Richmond Road, Bangalore-560025.<br /> (By Sri.S.Umesh, Advocate for O.P.1)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 17.03.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 15.04.2009<br /> Date of order : 15.05.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint against the opposite parties in brief is, that he is one of the old customers of opposite parties, maintaining an account with the first opposite party. That first opposite party had not debited any cash handling charges right from 22.04.1998 to 04.12.2007. However, the first opposite party on 15.12.2007 debited a sum of Rs.9,942/-, Rs.29/- and Rs.402/- on 31.12.2007, Rs.562/- on 16.06.2000 towards cash handling charges and has also debited Rs.1,668/- on 31.03.2008 towards not maintaining minimum balance of Rs.5,000/- without his knowledge, without any reasons and despite writing letters, they did not reply and thereby has prayed for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the debited amounts with interest at 25% p.a. and also to award Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and also to award cost.<br /> <br /> 2. On the facts of this case, notice was only ordered against the first opposite party who has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting that the complainant is maintaining an account with them and also deduction of the amounts as contended by the complainant, but have stated that they have deducted those amounts towards service charges and also have not maintaining minimum balance by the complainant in his account from 16.03.2008 to 15.06.2008 based on guidelines displayed in the notice board of the bank for the notice of the account holders and contending to have acted as per the guidelines denied any deficiency in his service and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the first opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced an extract of the accounts maintained by the first opposite party, copy of the legal notice he got issued to the opposite parties, reply given by the first opposite party and copies of two letters he had addressed to the first opposite party. The first opposite party has produced circular issued by their Head office with an enclosure to show that requirement of the customers to pay certain amounts towards accounts handling charges and in not maintaining minimum balance. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the first opposite party has caused deficiency in service in debiting handling charges and certain amount for not maintaining minimum balance in the account?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Answered in part in the affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no.:- As evident from the grievance of the complainant and defense of the first opposite party, there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the complainant maintaining an account with the first opposite party and debiting of certain amounts by the first opposite party to the account of the complainant. The first opposite party by producing a circular of their Head Office dated 27.09.2006 with an enclosure indicating the amounts chargeable as handling charges and for not maintaining minimum balance of the account has relied upon that circular and justified his action in debiting certain amount to the account of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. Before we go to the act of the first opposite party in debiting certain amounts, it is relevant to refer to the circular relied upon by them. It is found that the circular has come into effect from 01.10.2006 and the General Manager of the opposite parties indicated in the same circular to circulate this circular for the notice of all the staff members for their knowledge and information to give effect to that circular. Therefore, it follows that the first opposite party was aware of the guidelines issued by their Head Office regarding debiting certain charges in respect of transactions made by their customers. According to the circular, the banker is entitled to debit certain service charges and also certain charges for not maintaining the minimum balance in the account. The first opposite party has stated that they had displayed this circular to the notice of the customers in the notice board of their bank, but the complainant denied his knowledge about the circular. whenever, the bankers adopt certain guidelines and make certain provisions for handling the accounts, they are required to display the same to the notice of the public in the notice board and it may not be feasible to send the notice to the individual account holder separately by issuing individual notices or sending circulars. Therefore, the complainant no dobut is liable to pay certain charges as indicated in the circular of the bankers. But that is not the issue involved in this case, regarding circulating this circular or otherwise. But, the first opposite party who was aware of the circular and their right of debiting certain amounts kept quite for a long time and did not exercise their right and discharge their duties diligently but kept quite for all the period. But for the first time on 15.12.2007 debited a sum of Rs.9,942/- to the account of the complainant. Here, we should bear in mind that the first opposite party has not come with particulars as how they have arrived to this figure of Rs.9,942/-. The circular relied upon by the first opposite party provides for charging Rs.29/- for a transaction over and above Rs.50,000/-. On perusal of this circular, it emerges that the banks can debit Rs.29/- for every transaction of crediting Rs.50,000/- at a transaction and it does not to withdrawals. Even otherwise, the first opposite party has not clarified by furnishing details even before this Forum as to from which date and on what transaction or on how many transactions they have arrived the figure of Rs.9,942/- and debited to the account of the complainant. In either way, it is not made clear why first opposite party kept quite from 01.10.2006 till 15.12.2007 and debited at once such a heavy amount from the account of the complainant. Therefore, it appears that first opposite party was not diligent in his duty in giving effect to the circular issued by their Head Office or was showing dereliction to his duty. The circular even provides discretion to the Manger of certain Ranks to reduce or even waive the cash handling charges on case to case basis on the merit of each case. We do not know if the first opposite party or his predecessor on earlier occasion had exercised their discretion of waiving service charges and therefore did not charge the complainant and later on though of recovering service charges at once. It looks that first opposite party has acted at vims and fancies in debiting the amounts. Therefore, we find here that the first opposite party is deficient in his service in not charging the complainant as per the circular and in not coming forward with the necessary details to justify his action in debiting in our view looks arbitrary and therefore cannot be sustained. <br /> <br /> 8. Coming to the deduction of Rs.1,668/- by the first opposite party from the account of the complainant, the complainant has contended that on 31.03.2008 the first opposite party has debited that amount, but has not specifically mentioned in the statement of accounts furnished to him. The first opposite party in his version and affidavit evidence admitted to have debited this amount from the account of the complainant. But, it is found and not disputed that debiting of this amount is not reflected in the statement of account maintained by the opposite party. This also adds to the negligent way in which the men of the first opposite party are operating in that branch, whenever any amount is debited to the account of the complainant that should have find place in the statement of accounts indicating towards what head or item that amount is debited. Therefore, it looks the first opposite party is very callously dealing with the accounts of his customers and is not diligent in taking note of the guidelines issued in the forum of circulars by their Head Office from time to time for and to give affect to them. Hence, for such lapses the concerned officials of first opposite party alone are responsible. The first opposite party could have been justified in debiting these amounts to the account of the complainant even at the belated stage, provided if they had offered any acceptable reasons in not giving effect to the circular referred to above for charging the complainant towards service charges etc., But, in the absence of any such reasonings assigned before us, or the pa;rticulars as to what is the legal fee chargeable on the complainant towards service charges etc., the lumpsum they have deducted cannot be held as legal and is in accordance with the circular relied upon.<br /> <br /> 9. Coming to the deduction of Rs.562/- towards non-maintaining of minimum balance by the complainant between 16.03.2008 to 15.06.2008 is concerned, the circular provides that each customer of the current account and other accounts are required to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in their account. As on 01.10.2006 and thereafter as admitted, the complainant had maintained only Rs.5,007/- in his account. The complainant who had admittedly visited the first opposite party many times was expected to enquire about details of deductions made from his account and was in know of certain changes that are notified in the notice board of first opposite party from time to time. Therefore, we do not find any latches on the part of the first opposite party in debiting a sum of Rs.562/- from the account of the complainant for non-maintenance of minimum balance. It could be seen that the complainant despite addressing two letters to the first opposite party on 04.01.2008 and 18.08.2008 questioning the debiting of service charges, the first opposite party did not bother to convince the complainant by sending a reply. All these facts as highlighted by us above abundantly speak of deficiency in the service of first opposite party in handling account of the complainant. As such, the complaint so far as the relief of refunding of certain amounts debited towards service charges deserves to be allowed and is liable to be dismissed so far as the debiting of Rs.562/- towards non-maintaining of minimum balance. With the result, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.<br /> 2. The first opposite party is directed to either credit Rs.12,001/- to the account of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order or to repay that amount to the complainant within above stipulated period, failing which he shall pay interest on that amount at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The first opposite party shall also pay Rs.1,500/- towards mental agony and harassment to the complainant and cost of Rs.500/-.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 15th May 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />