CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 4th day of March, 2017
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing: 28/11/2015
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
: SRI.V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER
CC/181/2015
Dr.A.c.David,
Arimboor House,
ATS Road, Chalisseri,
Palakkad.
679 536. : Complainant
Vs
Branch Manager,
Catholic Syrian Bank, : Opposite Party
Chalisseri, Palakkad.
(By Adv.A.K. Priya Anil)
O R D E R
By Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan, Member
Brief facts of the Case.
The complainant is an account holder with Catholic Syrian Bank at Chalissery branch, in Palakkad district since 13.02.2010 and his account number is 0013-00289760-190001.
On noticing unauthorized debits in his savings account and which were not entered in the pass book, he made a written complaint duly acknowledged by the manager of the opposite party bank on 23.12.2014. Since there was no response from the branch manager he reported the matter to the customer service and Zonal office of the Bank by Email on 26.01.2015. With no response from higher officers of the bank, he made an online complaint to the Banking Ombudsman(ref.No.201415015001648) following which debits of Rs.233/- were reversed on 06.02.2015 and the case was disposed by the Banking Ombudsman without any compensation(Email on 03.03.2015). On 31.3.2015 again unauthorized debit was noticed in his savings account, but this time with a different nomenclature. This was intimated to the bank personally and later by Email on 18.4.2015 with no response from the branch manager and other higher officers of the bank, again he approached the Banking Ombudsman and filed an online complaint (201415015002742) which was rejected because complainant has not attached documents showing that he first approached the bank for solving the matter. Hence he sent all the documents(scanned copies) to the Banking Ombudsman through email twice, but the Banking Ombudsman said that he has not received the same. Hence the complainant finally sent all the documents and fresh complaint by registered post on 07.09.2015; later on, on 06.10.2015, Rs.112/-was reversed and case (201516015000398) was disposed by Banking Ombudsman on 26.10.2015 again without any compensation. The complainant appeals that he has incurred expenses in making these communications over a period of last one year by way of postal charges, telephone calls, stationery and other miscellaneous expenses which would be more than the amount credited back to his account.
Hence, the complainant prays to the Honorable Forum that the opposite party may be penalized for fraud and deficiency of service for Rs.2000/-and also to bear the expenses of this litigation.
The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to opposite party.
In his version filed before the Honorable Forum, opposite party submits the following.
Except those facts that are specifically admitted herein this opposite party denies the entire averments in the petition. The petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts since the matter is already considered on merits by the Honorable Banking Ombudsman and hence this court has no jurisdiction. The petition is filed without any bonafides and only as a pressure tactics to harass this opposite party. Also this Forum lacks jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The averments by the complainant that on noticing unauthorized debits in his savings account which were not entered in the passbook and that the complainant made written compliant duly acknowledged to the opposite party on 23.12.2014 and that there was no response from the opposite party and that complainant had reported the matter to the customer service and Zonal office of the bank through email on 26.01.2015 and that no response from the higher officers of the bank and that on 31.03.2015 again further unauthorized debit was noticed in the savings account and that had intimated to the bank personally and through email and that no response from the opposite party and other higher officers of the bank and that the complainant incurred expenses in making all these communications over a period of last one year by way of postal charges, telephone calls, stationery, and other miscellaneous expenses and that the opposite party is liable to be penalized for fraud and deficiency of service for an amount of Rs.2000/-and also to bear the expenses of this litigation etc. are incorrect and false and the opposite party denies the same. According to the opposite party the real facts are as follows . The opposite party represents a reputed scheduled bank which are doing business of banking throughout the nation under the Reserve Bank of India by strictly following the rules, regulations, guidelines and procedures in the banking services. The complainant is one among the lakhs of customers of the opposite party bank. The operation of the account was not satisfactory and the computerized accounting system of the bank is automatically debiting the service charges on various occasions and the fact that the branch manager of the bank has no power for reversing charges debited by the system and it was explained to the complainant that the system will charge operative charges, if the account holder is not operating the account. Moreover as per Customer Service Policy of the Reserve Bank of India, banks are free to levy the service charges on approval of board of directors of the bank. Notice has to be published in the notice board of the bank as per RBI direction which was followed by this opposite party. Without properly understanding the things complainant made complaints to the Banking Ombudsman and following their direction debit of Rs.233/-was reversed on 06.02.2015 and the case was disposed off by the Banking Ombudsman without allowing any cost or compensation. Within one month of disposing of the complaint, again the complainant filed another complaint to the Banking Ombudsman without any basis, which was rejected with a finding that the complainant had not attached documents showing that he had first approached the bank for resolving the matter. Again another complaint was made on 07.09.2015 and on 06.10.2015 the amount of Rs.112/- was reversed and case was disposed off by Banking Ombudsman without any compensation or cost. The complainant had made the alleged complaints and communication to the Banking Ombudsman by email, phone and online. Hence no expenses were incurred by the complainant as claimed. The documents produced are not relevant to prove the case. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party in dealing with the SB account of the complainant and hence opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation amount or cost as claimed in the complaint. Due to a misunderstanding the complainant had filed a frivolous and vexatious petition against the opposite party. The above case is filed as a pressure tactics and is to grab the litigation expenses of a previous dispute, by filing this unwarranted litigation and thereby to further harass the opposite party. This opposite party was acting only according to law.
Therefore this opposite party prays to the Honorable Forum to accept the contentions of the opposite party and dismiss the petition with cost .
Complainant filed chief affidavit. He also filed IA 118/16 seeking permission to cross examine opposite party. On verification it is seen that opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant and his witness. Complainant submitted no objection and hence application was allowed. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. Complainant filed IA 152/16 to cause production of account statement from opposite party which opposite party produced. Complainant was cross examined as PW1 and Exts.A1-A9 were marked from the side of the complainant. Complainant filed 301/16 to cause production of documents by opposite party which opposite party produced. Hence IA 301/16 was cleared. Complainant filed additional chief affidavit. Since sufficient reason was made out, complainant’s IA 404/16 to cross examine opposite party was allowed. IA 404/16 was dismissed as the same person was already crossed. Complainant was further cross examined answers not filed by opposite party and opposite party sought adjournment which was allowed on cost. Opposite party was cross examined as DW1 and from the side of the opposite party Exts.B1-B4 were marked.
The following issues arise in this case.
- Whether there is any negligence/deficiency of service from the side of opposite parties?
- If so, what is the relief?
Issues 1&2
In this case the complainant requested for printed computer statement of account from 13.01.2010 to 23.12.2014 and on noticing unauthorized debits in his savings account, which were not entered in the hand written passbook, the complainant made a written complaint to the opposite party vide Ext.A1. The opposite party has reversed service charges earlier debited to his SB account as per Ext.A6 following an online complaint by the complainant to the Banking Ombudsman. Again Rs.112/-was debited to SB account of the complainant as annual maintenance charges on 31.03.2015 vide Ext.A7. When debits were seen again the complaint represented to the Banking Ombudsman vide Ext.A2 requesting the latter to take up the matter with the opposite party bank and direct the same to reverse the charges(Annual maintenance charge) debited to his account on 31.03.2015. Complainant also requested for compensation as per Ext.A2. The unauthorized debit was reversed by opposite party bank following the direction of the Banking Ombudsman as per Ext.A3, although the compensation was not ordered by the Banking Ombudsman. Hence for getting compensation and litigation expenses complaint was filed to the Honorable Forum praying for penalizing the opposite party for fraud and deficiency of service for Rs.2000/-and to order for bearing the litigation expenses by the opposite party.
According to the opposite party, as per Customer Service Policy of the Reserve Bank of India, banks are free to levy the service charges on approval of the board of directors of the banks. Notice with regard to levy of such charges has to be published in the notice board of the bank as per RBI direction which was followed by this opposite party. Banks can levy charges, if the operation of the account of the customer is not satisfactory. Bank had explained to the complainant that the system will charge operative charges if the account holder is not operating the account. The computerized accounting system of the banks is automatically debiting the service charges on various occasions and the branch manager of the bank has no power for reversing charges debited by the system at branch level. According to the opposite party complainant made complaints to the Banking Ombudsman and accordingly debit of Rs.233/-was reversed on 06.02.2015. Again another complaint was made by the complainant on 07.09.2015 and it was disposed off by Banking Ombudsman on 06.10.2015 by reversing the debit of Rs.112/- in the complainant’s account. Further opposite party contends that as per the circulars issued from head office from time to time, the opposite party is debiting service charges and maintenance charges to SB account after sufficient notice to customers Exts.B1-B4 are circulars issued from head office informing revision of various service charges, annual account charges and modification of minimum balance requirements. Circular No.218/2007/BC/Pre&dev-5. Dated 15.10.2007 regarding the modification in the service charges marked as Ext.B1, circular No.29/2010/BC/pre-dev dated 28.1.2010 clarifies the modification in service charges from 01/02/2010 marked as Ext.B2. Modification in minimum balance requirements and revision of service charges effective from 01/04/2015 for the financial year 2015-16 marked as Ext.B3 and the copy of notice published in the notice board which is marked as Ext.B4 will go to show that the debits are not unauthorized. The opposite party also contends that Ext.B3 modification communicated to the branch manager w.e.f.1/4/2015 shows that annual account charges for regular SB account is Rs.100/- per year with tax and hence the annual maintenance charges debited on 31/3/2016 is legal and sufficient notice was published in the notice board on 26.2.2015 as per Ext.B4. Opposite party further contends that complainant’s son’s account is not debited with service charges because it is a student account. Further the opposite party contends that since this opposite party has reversed the amount to the complainant following the direction from the Banking Ombudsman, the complainant has filed this complaint which is against the principle that ‘ no man should be vexed twice for same cause of action’. Also the complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that he has incurred cost such as postal receipt, internet bills, telephone bills, stationery bills, travel bills etc. Finally the debits of service charges of Rs.33+33+55+56+56 totaling Rs.233/-, which were reversed back on 06.02.2015 and debit of Rs.112/-towards annual maintenance charges were reversed by the opposite party bank in order to avoid vexatious and frivolous complaint and to avoid legal proceeding over a frivolous and vexatious claim.
Hence it is prayed that the Honorable Forum may dismiss the complaint with cost to this opposite party.
From the above, we observe that the opposite party bank has reversed the debits in the complainant’s SB account on account of service charges made by the opposite party bank on different dates from 31.3.2010 to 31.3.2014 totaling Rs.233/-for five years on 06/02/2015 only after receipt of the direction to that effect from the Banking Ombudsman. Similarly the opposite party bank also reversed on 06.10.2015 debit to the complainant’s SB account of Rs.112/-towards annual maintenance charges (debit was made by opposite party bank on 31.3.2015) only after receiving direction to that effect by the Banking Ombudsman . Therefore the opposite party bank has been observed to have committed deficiency of service by not reversing the debits before receiving the direction from the Banking Ombudsman to that effect. Thus it is viewed that the opposite party bank has accepted their deficiency of service by accepting the direction given by the Banking Ombudsman to reverse the unauthrized debits in the complainant’s saving account. Further while deposing as PW1 during cross examination on 2/7/2016 the complainant stated that “ Fs¶ ad¨psh-¨n-«mWv kÀhokv NmÀPv CuSm-¡n-b-Xv. A¡u-n \n¶pw FSp¯ XpI ]mkv _p¡n tcJ-s¸-Sp-¯n-bn-«n-Ã. _m¦v A[n-Ir-XÀ AwKo-Ir-X-a-Ãm¯ coXn-bn ]Ww FSp-¯Xpw AXv Fs¶ Ad-nbn-¡m-sXbpw ]mkv _p¡n tNÀ¡m-sX-bp-amWv FSp-¯n-«p-f-fXv”.
Again Opposite party has deposed while being crossed as DW1 on 19.12.2016 that “]cm-Xnsb kw_-Ôn¨v Hmw_p-Uvkvam-\n \n¶pw Hcp t^m¬ tImÄ h¶-Xnsâ ASn-Øm-\-¯n XpI dnthgvkv sNbvXv sImSp-¯n-«pv. AD James sâ A¡uv students support account BWv. A§-s\-bp-ff A¡u-n km[m-cW service charge debit sNbvXp ImWp-¶p-v. Complainant sâ account  Hcn-¡epw in operative charges FSp-¯n-«n-Ã. Complainant sâ account  A§s\ bmsXmcp A]m-I-X-Ifpw Hä-t\m-«-¯n In-«n-à ”.
In the light of all of the above, opposite party bank is seen to have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.
Hence the complaint is allowed.
Therefore the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only)by way of compensation to the complainant for mental agony suffered by him and also to pay him Rs.1000/-towards litigation expenses incurred by the complainant.
The Order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order; otherwise interest at 9% per annum on the total amount due should also be paid from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 4th day of March 2017.
Sd/- Shiny. P.R
President
Sd/- Suma. K.P Member
Sd/- V.P.Anantha Narayanan Member
