Haryana

Panchkula

CC/399/2019

AANCHAL GARG. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL GARG.

08 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	399 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	04.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	08.03.2022

 

Aanchal Garg w/o Anil Garg, H.No.1004, Sector-9, Panchkula.

   ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

Bank of Baroda, SCO No.56, Sector-8, Near Post Office, Panchkula through its Branch Manager-134109.

                                                                        ……Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

For the Parties:   Sh. Anil Garg, Advocate for the complainant.  

                        Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate for OP.                

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint as alleged are that the complainant is maintaining joint Saving Bank Account No.27210100007501 with Opposite Party(hereinafter referred to as OP)  since 28.03.2013. This account was opened with minimum balance of Rs.1000/- per quarter and has maintained her account with more than the above said amount. The complainant has also got 3 FDs heavy amounts with OP, linked with the above said Saving Bank Account. ON 16.02.2019, the complainant checked her saving account and surprised to know that an amount of Rs.1180/- had been deducted on account of non-maintenance of minimum balance amount. She has visited OP and met the bank officials, and they have were assured that this amount has been deducted due to some technical fault. The complainant had also given written request dated 16.02.2019 about the deductions of the amount of Rs.1180/- and OP assured that deducted amount would be refunded in the Saving Bank Account. The complainant again checked her saving account on 09.04.2019 and an amount of Rs.1180/- has again deducted on account of non-maintenance of minimum balance amount. She again met the OP and requested for the refund of amount. The complainant again met the officials of the OP on 16.04.2019 but grievance of the complainant has not been redressed. Thereafter, the complainant has served a legal notice dated 22.04.2019 upon the OP. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss. The OP has also committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; not come with clean hands; non-joinder; concealed the true material facts; estoppels; no jurisdiction; no cause of action; no locus standi and the complainant does not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’. On merits, it is stated that the complainant was operating Superior Saving Bank Account(A/c No.27210100007501) jointly with her husband Sh.Anil Garg with minimum balance of Rs.1000/- per quarter but the complainant had conveniently concealed the fact that from March 2017 on wards the account was being operated as Superior Saving account with auto sweep facility whereby excess amount of threshold limit of Rs.55,000/- was transferred in term deposit on which the account holders benefitted with higher rate of interest. Also, it is denied that the account holders maintained the minimum balance requirements. The complainant through internet banking facility resulting in non-maintenance of minimum balance of Rs.55,000/- and the same is evident from the account statement.  Further, it is denied that the complainant visited the OP or met bank officials in the month of Feb. 2019 and was given any assurance by the bank officials that the amount has been deducted due to any technical fault. It is also denied that any written request was given by the complainant or any assurance of refund was given to the complainant. The letter dated 16.02.2019, 09.04.2019 is an afterthought. The complainant and her husband Sh. Anil Garg were explained in detail the reason of deductions made, as the amount was transferred in term deposit through Internet Banking and the minimum balance was not being maintained in the account. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             Replication to the written statement of the OP was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OP.

 4.            The Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-5 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A along with document Annexure R/1 and closed the evidence.

5.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant and OP, minutely and carefully.

6.             The only grievance of the Complainant is that a sum of Rs. 1100/- + Rs.1100/- has wrongly been deducted by the OP from her joint savings bank account no.27210100007501 on 16.02.2019 and 09.04.2019 on the ground that a minimum balance of Rs.55,000/- was not available in the said savings account on the said dates. As per complainant, she is a savings bank account-holder and there was no such requirement of keeping a minimum balance of Rs.55,000/- in the account when the said account was opened. It is stated that the account was opened with minimum balance of Rs. 1,000/- per quarter.

7.             The OP has justified its act of making deductions of alleged amount of Rs. 1100/- + Rs.1,100/- on the alleged date stating that from March 2017 onwards, the account was being operated as superior savings account with auto sweep facility wherein the excess amount above the limit of Rs.55,000/- automatically got transferred in term deposit, thereby benefiting the accountholders with higher rate of interest. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has also raised the objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground of non-joinder of the other joint holder namely Shri Anil Garg. The Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed reliance upon the order dated 13.07.2007 passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in Revision petition no.3342 of 2007 titled as ‘Axis Bank Ltd. Vs. Shri Surya Narayan Saxena’. The case law is of no help to the case of the OP as the facts and issues involved in the present case, are quite different. The objections raised with regard to the non-joinder of the necessary party i.e. the other accountholder namely Sh.Anil Garg is also of no avail to the OP as Sh.Anil Garg who is the other joint holder and is husband of the Complainant, is Counsel in the present case being duly authorized by the Complainant through power of attorney which is available on record.

 8.            We have perused the account statement Annexure C-1 and find that the Complainant is availing the facility of auto sweep since March 2017, wherein the amount above the limit of Rs. 55,000/- got transferred into term deposit with higher rate of interest and thus, the Complainant got the benefit of higher interest to which she did not raise any objection. The Complainant, by her act, conduct and acquiescence, is estopped now as per law of estoppels to raise the issue that she being a savings bank account holder is not required to maintain a minimum balance of Rs. 55,000/- or above; hence, grievances of the Complainant do not seem to be correct and justified.

9.             Having stated so, the claim of the Complainant is not liable to be rejected in toto because the OP never sought the consent of the Complainant while converting the saving bank account into superior saving bank account with auto sweep facility. Even it is not the case of the OP that it ever sought the prior consent of the Complainant before converting the saving bank account into superior saving bank account with auto sweep facility. As per well settled legal proposition, the OP was not empowered to convert the saving bank account into superior saving bank account with auto sweep facility unilaterally at its own level without having any consent and option of the Complainant. Therefore, there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP while delivering services to the Complainant; hence, the Complainant is entitled to relief.

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with following directions:-:-

1. To refund Rs.2,360/-(Rs.1180+1180) to the complainant, to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,000/- to complainant on account of mental agony, harassment and cost of litigations charges.

 

11.            The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 08.03.2022

          Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini             Satpal

                  Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini      

                                             Member