D .o.F: 29/10/08D.o.O: 12/03/2009 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.223/08 Dated this, the 12h day of March 2009 PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER K.Narayanan Nair, Supriya, Udinur Central, : Complainant Po.Udinoor 1.Branch Manager, S.B.T, Trikarpur. 2.Regional Manager, : Opposite parties S.B.T, Kannur. O R D E R SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT: In summary, the case of the complainant, K Narayanan Nair is that the first opposite party has illegally appropriated a sum of Rs.784/- kept in his account maintained with them alleging that he has failed to keep minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in his account. According to the complainant he had a balance of Rs.1761/- in his account as on 19/9/07 and on that day he withdraw a sum of Rs.1000/-. It is his specific case that if the bank officials have informed him about the minimum balance stipulation on 19/9/07 when he approached for the withdrawal of Rs.1000/- from his account then he ought not have withdrawn the amount without maintaining the minimum balance as stipulated. Hence the complainant praying for an order against opposite parties to refund of Rs.784/- that was appropriated by the first opposite party along with compensation and costs. 2. Opposite parties admitted in their version that the amount of Rs.784/- was debited from the account of the complainant. As per a circular dtd.25/6/2007 issued to them from their Head office at Thiruvananthapuram, there shall be a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in an account in a branch situated at semi-urban area, if the account is having the facility of cheque transactions. This information was displayed in the notice board of the bank and it is known to the complainant. After the computerization of all the branches of State Bank of Tranvacore as per the present system if there is no minimum balance a sum of Rs.300/- will be fined for every 3 months and it will be automatically debited and if there is no sufficient amount in the account balance will be shown as zero. Accordingly the computer system has shown zero balance in the account of the complainant. Further on his complaint dtd.24/9/08 submitted by the complainant before the 2nd opposite party a prompt reply was given to the complainant and directed him to approach Ist opposite party. But the complainant did not heed to the request of first opposite party who contacted complainant in furtherance of the direction of 2nd opposite party. Later as per the direction of 2nd opposite party the fine of Rs.784/- levied from the complainant was credited in his account and even after that complainant filed this complaint to blot the goodwill of the opposite parties. The opposite parties therefore praying for a dismissal of the complaint with cost . 3. No oral evidence adduced by both sides. Complainant produced Ext.A1 copy of his saving bank account book. Opposite parties produced Exts.B1&B2. Both sides heard. 4. The facts are not in dispute. The only issue to be settled in this case is that whether the act of debiting the amount as fine in the accounts where there is no minimum balance amounts to deficiency in service or not? 5. The opposite parties contended that they were made aware to their customers about the revised rate of keeping minimum balance in their account by fixing notices in the notice board of bank branches. The definite case of the complainant that he was not told about the keeping of minimum balance ie, Rs.1000/- in his account when he withdraw Rs.1000/- on 10/9/2007 while he was having Rs.1761/- in his deposit. According to him had it been informed to him then he would not have withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/- so as to fall his account below minimum balance. We find no reason to disbelieve his version, especially when the opposite parties admit that complainant is one of their good customers. 6. So the lack of communications about the maintenance of minimum balance is evident in this case. The opposite parties stated that the keeping of minimum balance in the account was made aware to public through the notice board kept in their branch premises. But how many customers of the bank look in to the notice board who eagerly approaches the bank for cash transactions? Even a routine visitor may not have such a practice of looking in to the notice boards. So the fixing of notice in the notice board of bank is not at all sufficient to give such an important information to the customers. Of course the bank could have made awareness to the customers through medias. The opposite parties have no case that they have made such an announcement through medias and news papers. 7. After computerization of the bank accounts it is very easy to find and sort out the details of account holders who are not keeping minimum balance in their account. There was no prohibition to send them registered notices individually demanding them to keep minimum balance in their account and the amount incurred for issuing notices could have been collected from them as they are doing the same from loanees to whom loan due notices are regularly issued. It was their bounden duty to give option to every customer who fall in those category. Therefore, the said appropriation of amounts is nothing but deficiency in service for that opposite parties are liable. The contention that the debited amount of Rs.784/- is again credited in the account of the complainant is not an excuse to cover up the deficiency in service committed by them. 8. Another contention raised by the opposite parties to defend the claim of the complainant is that after the computerization of all the branches of opposite party, the computer system will debit Rs.300/- in quarterly rests automatically as a fine if the customer is not keeping a minimum balance in the account is no way justifiable. Computerization is intended to make the banking faster less expensive and easier to both the bankers and customers and it shall not cast any financial burden upon the customers. Such a mode of debiting system is no way digestable without a pinch of salt. We are in dismay to note that how much money the opposite parties have appropriated from the customers through this debiting system! 9. From Ext.B2, it is seen that the amount appropriated from the complainant is credited in his account. We appreciate the complainant who has taken the strain and pain to agitate against the acts of opposite parties without considering the size of money involved in it. In the result, complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation to the complainant for the hardships and mental agony he suffered due to the appropriation of money from his account. Opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards the cost of these proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Ext.A1- copy of savings bank passbook B1-Copy of circular B2-27/11/08-copy of letter issued by OP.NO.1 to complainant MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.P.Shymaladevi
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
