IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC 77/2015.
Date of Filing: 18.06.2015. Date of Final Order: 11.08.2017.
Complainant: Chandan Dutta, S/O Late Ranjit Kr. Dutta, Vill.&P.O. Barua P.S. Beldanga,
Dist. Murshidabad. Pin 742189.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Berhampore Branch,
3/20, K.K. Banerjee Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad. Pin 742101.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya Presiding Member.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for refund of Rs.1040/- , the illegally deducted amount, along with interest and compensation for harassment and mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant has current A/C baring No. 163010200005272 in the name of M/S Ranjit Kr. Dutta since 2007 as Business Classic (Prime) A/C and the same was enhanced to privilege A/C since 2012 where minimum average balance of Rs.2.5 lakh is to be maintained. In the month of March, 2015 the complainant noticed that the OP-Bank deducted Rs.10040/- from his impugned current A/C. On query the OP-Bank replied that for non-maintainability of the minimum balance the said amount was deducted. The complainant found that required balance was there. Thereafter, the complainant met with OP-office on several occasions. The OP-office refused with different executes. On 29.3.15 the OP-Bank told that within 30.3.15 if complainant could deposit some money in his two Savings Bank A/C of the OP-Bank then the complainant will get refund of such deducted amount. The complainant deposited Rs.50, 000/- in his wife’s savings A/C. Then, the OP-Bank told that amount is not sufficient, the complainant is to deposit Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.18 Lakhs but the same was not possible by the complainant. Then, the complainant was compelled to file the instant compliant. Hence, the instant Complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-Bank , in brief, is that the complainant has failed to maintain the average monthly balance of Rs.5 lakh in his privilege current a/c and not Rs.2.5 Lakh and for that the OP-Bank has rightly charged in the month of February’15 towards monthly average charge for Rs.3500/- and penal tariff for Rs.5436/- and Service Tax of Rs.1104.49. There is no negligence on the part of the OP-Bank. The complainant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- When the case is maintainable in the present form and in law?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the present case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
The instant complaint is for refund of Rs.1040/- , the illegally deducted amount, along with interest and compensation for harassment and mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s main case is that the OP-Bank has illegally deducted Rs.10040/- from the privilege Class Current A/C of the complainant inspite of maintaining average balance of Rs.2.5 lakh.
On the other hand, the OP-Bank’s case is that the minimum balance is to be maintained Rs.5 lakh and for non-maintainability of that amount the OP has rightly deducted Rs.10040/- . The OP has denied the allegation that the balance to be maintained is Rs.2.5 Lakhs.
To prove the case the complainant has adduced his evidence on affidavit and relevant documents in support of his case.
On the other hand the OP-Bank has also adduced evidence on affidavit and the relevant documents in support of their defense case.
Admittedly, the complainant has current privilege A/C for his business. In the complaint petition of this case there is no averment that the impugned business is for his livelihood.
In this regard the Ld. lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that there is no such pleadings in the written version filed by the OP Bank with the allegation that the impugned A/c of the complainant with OP-Bank is for commercial purpose and for that the instant complainant is not maintainable under the C. P. Act.
To that effect the settled principle is that the complainant is to prove his case on his own leg without taking any advantage of the OP’s case.
In the written version there is allegation that the case is not maintainable in its present form and in law.
From the complainant’s case considering the evidence both oral and documents, it is clear that the impugned A/C of the complaint is current privilege A/C for his business where average balance of Rs.5 lakh is to be maintained and there is no averment as well as any cogent evidence to show 6that the said business A/c is for his livelihood.
Considering the materials on record we have no other alternative but to conclude that the impugned current business privilege A/C is for commercial purpose and for that the instant case is not maintainable.
Regarding deduction of charge for Rs.10040/- for non-maintenance of monthly average balance of Rs.5 lakh in the business privilege A/C the Ld. lawyer for the complaint has advanced argument that the OP Bank illegally deducted Rs.10040/- without intimation and there is no terms of such deduction and as per verbal instruction the average balance to be maintained is Rs.2.5 lakh.
On the other hand the OP-Bank has adduced the relevant document which clearly shows that in the business privilege A/c monthly average balance of Rs.5 lakh is to be maintained and in default required charges to be deducted.
In this regard during hearing argument the Ld. lawyer for the complainant has advanced argument that on several occasions the complainant has failed to maintain the scheduled monthly average balance but the OP-Bank did not deduct any amount towards charges for such non-maintenance of average balance. This is nothing but the question of application of the principle of waiver.
But there is no such case for application of the principle of waiver.
The settled principle is that the court cannot go beyond the pleadings
In this regard the ld. lawyer for the OP has pointed out during his argument that there is no such evidence that on other occasions the complainant failed to maintain the required average monthly balance and OP did not deduct any such charge. Rather, he has pointed out that the complainant is maintaining the impugned current business privilege A/C and maintaining the average balance after the instant deduction.
The complainant’s further case is that on 29.3.15 the OP-Bank told that within 30.3.15 if complainant could deposit some money in his two Savings Bank A/C of the OP-Bank then the complainant will get refund of such deducted amount. The complainant deposited Rs.50, 000/- in his wife’s savings A/C . Then, the OP-Bank told that amount is not sufficient, the complainant is to deposit Rs.15 lakhs to Rs.18 Lakhs but the same was not possible by the complainant.
The OP has denied the same . At the same time the complaint’s case in this regard is that oral instruction. There is no sufficient corroboration evidence to establish the same. Also his verbal instruction, of any, has no justification to establish the case of refund of deduction charge; where there is specific evidence as to maintenance of specific monthly average balance and sufficient document has been filed by the OP to establish that the complainant has not maintained the impugned required balance.
On the other hand there is no cogent rebuttable evidence from the side of the complainant against the evidence adduced by the OP-Bank.
On the basis of above discussions as a whole we have no other alternative but to conclude that the complainant has failed to establish his case and as such he is not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly the complaint is liable to be dismissed without any cost.
Hence,
Ordered
that the Consumer Complaint No. 77/15 be and the same is dismissed on contest without any order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
