DATE OF FILING : 28.08.2009
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of January, 2010
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER C.C No.157/2009 Between Complainant : Joseph Thomas S/o Thomas, Managing Partner, M/s.Good News Wealth, 295, N.G Nagar, Munnakolala, Marthahalli P.O, Bangalore residing at Madakkakuzhiyil House, Vellayamkudy P.O, Kattappana, Idukki District. (By Advs: Anish George & T.P.Mathew) And Opposite Party : The Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Kattappana Branch, Kattappana P.O, Idukki District. (By Adv: Baby Joseph)
O R D E R SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
Petitioner is a partnership firm. The firm opened a current account in the opposite party's bank on 19.09.2008 as Account No.67068046972. The amount deposited was Rs.5,000/-. The account was not operated in the initial period. On 11.06.2009, firm made a deposit in the account, in the same day they obtained a statement of balance. As per the statement of balance opposite party deducted Rs.605/- from the complainant's account for account keeping charges. It was a penalty for not maintaining the required balance in the current account. Opposite party had never made an attempt to inform to the firm to keep a minimum balance in the current account. The opposite party has no right or authority to debit any amount from the complainant's account, without any demand or his consent. The opposite party was wilfully made the account deficient of minimum balance. Complainant send a notice to the opposite party for correction of account but the opposite party had no response. Complainant personally appeared in the bank and enquired the matter, but the opposite party humiliated the petitioner before the customers of the bank. Hence this complaint is filed before this Forum. 2. The opposite party filed written version. In the written version, the opposite party admitted the account. The account was in the "Good News Wealth". It was not an individual account. It was 'other than individual category'. At the time of account opening itself the opposite party explained all formalities and rules to the complainant. Kattappana branch is a semi-urban branch. So the complainant's account should keep a minimum balance of Rs.5,000/-. If the account is dead for a long period, bank has right to impose penalty as per RBI instruction. The opposite party sent letter to the complainant but it has returned with a reason that “door locked". The averment that the respondent has humiliated the complainant before the customers of the bank is denied in the written version. Opposite party stated that no unfair trade practice and deficiency of service happened on the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P7 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3(series) marked on the side of the opposite party. 5. The POINT :- The Manager of “Good News Wealth” was examined as PW1 and marked Exts.P1 to P7. The Assistant Manager of Kattappana SBT Branch was examined as DW1 and marked Exts.R1 to R3. Ext.P1 is the statement of account. Ext.P2 is the copy of letter given to the bank. Ext.P3 is the account opening form. Ext.P4 is a cover from SBI mutual fund. Ext.P5 is the cover from Kodak Mahindra Mutual Fund. Ext.P6 is also a cover from Income Tax Pan Card Authority. Ext.P7 is the lease agreement of complainant. Ext.R1 is the circular of opposite party from their Head Office, regarding Systems and Procedures Department. Ext.R2 is a copy of letter given to the complainant. Ext.R3(series) are the returned unclaimed letters, the letters were returned with a reason that “door locked”.
6. Ext.P6 and Ext.P7 marked through PW1 was objected by the opposite party. Ext.P1 is the statement of account of complainant. Only at the time of receipt of Ext.P1 complainant knew that bank charged Rs.605/-as service charge from his account. Ext.P2 shows complainant's immediate response in this matter. Ext.R3(series) reveals that the complainant's establishment was not functioning at that time. Ext.P3 is the first and foremost record, it is the copy of the account opening form. In Ext.P3 explained the rules and conditions of the opposite party but have no indication regarding the deduction of service charge. In the written version, opposite party stated that Kattappana branch is a semi-urban branch, but no record produced to show the same. Opposite party is a nationalised bank, it has its own rules and regulations. RBI instruction is the main guideline of opposite party, but the opposite party could not produce any such circular. PW1, as a depositor of opposite party have a right to know about the rules and conditions of opposite party. Opposite party should inform to the depositor whenever an amount withdraws from his account. So we think that there is a deficiency of service in this aspect.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of thisorder, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2010 Sd/- SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) Sd/- I agree SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- I agree SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) APPENDIX Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Joseph Thomas On the side of Opposite Party : DW1 - K.S.Krishnan Unni Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Copy of Statement of Account Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Complainant's letter dated 15.06.2009 addressed to the opposite party Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Account Opening Form Ext.P4 - Envelop from SBI Mutual Fund Ext.P5 - Envelop from Kotak Mutual Fund Ext.P6 - Envelop of Income Tax Pan Card issued by the Income Tax Pan Card Authority Ext.P7 - Photocopy of Lease Agreement On the side of Opposite Party : Ext.R1 - Circular No.24/2007 dated 14.09.2007 of Systems & Procedures Department in the State Bank of Travancore, Thiruvananthapuram Ext.R2 - Photocopy of reply letter dated 28.07.2009 issued by the opposite party to the complainant Ext.R3(series) - Returned unclaimed letters(2 Nos)
| 
