BY SMT. G. VASANTHAKUMARI, PRESIDENT.

            This complaint is filed against the opp.party bank challenging the deduction of Rs.331/- from the SB Account of the complainant and seeking recovery of the  above sum  with compensation and costs.

          Complainant’s case is that he is an  SB Account holder of  Federal Bank, Vallikkavu  Branch, that he went to the bank for depositing some amount in his account where he had a  balance of Rs.484.40 paise, that the bank deducted Rs.331/- from his account and on questioning  the same the bank authorities informed that as per rule all the Savings Bank Account holders shall keep a  minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in their account at all times, at least by the end of each quarter, failing which the bank is entitled  and authorized to deduct Rs.331/- towards penality and interest tax,   that he was harassed and ridiculed by the opp.party,  that he used to deposit his earnings and to withdraw the same as per his needs, that he is a senior  citizen  aged about 82 years having no job or business, that he approached the bank authorities demanding the above Rs.331/-  but all  are in vein   which resulted  in mental agony, that he is entitled to get  back  the above Rs.331/-  which they deducted without any notice to him and Rs.2750/- for his mental  agony and Rs.4,000/- towards cost

          Opp.party entered appearance and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that there is no consumer dispute  as defined in the  Consumer Protection Act , that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party that the opp.party has acted  only as per the Banking Practice and Rules prevailing now in respect of the maintenance of Account by the Account holders, that as per  rule all the Savings Bank Account holders shall keep a minimum balance of Rs.1000/-  in their account at all times, at least  at the end of each quarter failing which the bank is entitled  and authorized  to impose penality by means of debiting the  account to the extent of Rs.300/-  and interest tax of Rs.31/-  and thus the total amount of Rs.331/-  shall be debited from the account of the customer, that  here the complainant/the account holder  of A/c No.2708 was having an account balance of Rs.484.40  at the quarter ending 30^th  June 2009, since the account holder failed to maintain  the minimum balance of Rs.1000/-  the bank has rightly debited an amount of Rs.331/- from his account, for which he became aggrieved and caused  to file the present complaint,   that as per the banking rules pertaining  to service charges and fees , the bank  is entitled or authorized to impose penality by means  of debiting  the account for not maintaining the minimum balance  in the account,  that this information stands conveyed to all account holders  by means of Public notice exhibited in the bank premises and also in the pass book of the respective customers, over and above  the timely  notification in all media that admittedly the complainant has not maintained the  minimum balance in his account and accordingly the Bank  has debited a sum of Rs.331/- from his account,  that when the complainant came to the bank and enquired  about the debit entry  in his account, it was properly  explained to him and he was properly convinced of the same, that the allegation to the contrary that he was harassed and ridiculed by the opp.party has not even an iota of truth and it is only an exaggeration for the purpose of the case and in that the complaint is only  to be dismissed   with  cost of the opp.party

          Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice  of the opp.party?

2.     Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and cost?

For the complainant  PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1  marked.

For the opp.party  DW.1 is examined and Ext. D1 to D3 are  marked.

POINTS:

          The complaint is filed against the opp.party bank challenging the deduction of Rs.331/- from the SB account of the complainant  for not keeping a minimum balance of Rs.1000/-  in his account and sought for recovery of  this amount with compensation and cost.

          The main contention raised by the opp.party is that the account holder had to maintain  a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- at least by the end of each quarter failing which  bank is authorized and entitled to impose penality by means of  debiting Rs.331/-  from the account of the account holder.  The opp.party has produced  Ext.D1  certified copy of the account of the complainant for the quarter ending 30^th June 2009  The complainant produced Ext.P1 photocopy of 2 pages of his SB account.  It shows that   from 23^rd January 2009  onwards his credit balance  was Rs.484.40 only.  On 31.3.2009  his credit balance wasRs.514.40 only and hence the bank deducted Rs.331/- on 30.6.2009 for not maintaining the minimum balance.  Bank further produced Ext.  D2 circular  regarding service charges and fees. As per this circular the charges of non maintenance  of the minimum balance of the SB account is Rs. 300/-.  Bank also produced Ext. D3 circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India stating that the changes made in the service charges need not necessarily be informed each into the customer, as it would costly and impracticable.  The learned counsel appearing for the opp.party relied on the decision of  G.S.Shukla Vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and another [2009 [1] CPR305]  where it has been held that levy of charges by the bank for not maintaining minimum balance in the account does not amount to deficiency in service

          But the complainant vehemently argued that he is a senior citizen aged about 82 years  holding SB Account No. 2708  with the bank from 2002 onwards and he who has no job used to deposit what ever he earns  with the opp.party and used to withdrawn  as  and when he required and the opp.party never informed him about Ext. D2 and D3 circulars.  As usual when he approached the bank when there was a balance of Rs.484.40.  Opp.party after receiving his pass book deducted Rs.331/- for not maintaining minimum balance.   Even though  it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the opp.party that  in Ext.P1  about  the maintenance of minimum balance amount was prescribed and  at that time it was Rs.500/-  which was subsequently changed to Rs.1000/- as per  Ext. D2 circular, on going through Ext.P1 it is seen written only as “cheque book facility available  if a minimum balance of Rs.500/- is  maintained.  Minimum  balance for accounts without cheque book facility is Rs.100/-.  Incidental charges  will be levied if the prescribed  minimum balance is not maintained at all times.” Here the complainant admittedly has not availed any cheque book facility and the minimum balance for his account as per Ext.P1 is only Rs.100/-  The changes occurred long after as per  circular Ext. D2 and Ext D3 not brought to his notice by any one,.  Ext. D3 contains principles for ensuring reasonableness in fixing and communicating the service charges. Admittedly the bank has not communicated the changes made in the charges to the complainant who is a senior citizen aged about 82  and more over he  has a case that when he approached the bank claiming the deducted amount returned, the bank authorities ridiculed him.  It is true that there is  Ext. D1, D2 and D3  and  DW.1 has  deposed  before the Forum that  he has displayed  notice in the bank.  But there is no  evidence as to  whether the complainant has got  notice of the changes in  charges.    The complainant has deposed that he has got no notice of changes in charges.   The complainant is  a very old person aged 82 years.  In the reported decision the complainant is a salaried person  who get notice of the changes in charges  and  opened account with the opp.party bank along with his colleagues and thereafter they informed the bank that on account of refusal  of permission by the  senior  officials they are not able to credit their salaries regularly with the opp.party bank and since the salary was not being credited  in the account regularly he fell short of the minimum balance  on many occasions and the bank levied charges for the same.   So considering the complainant’s illiteracy, age etc  and facts and circumstances   of the case we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party and the complainant is entitled to get the deducted amount of Rs.331/-  back and Rs.500/- towards cost.  In the circumstances of the case there is no order as to compensation

          In the result the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opp.party  to pay back the amount of Rs.331/-  and  to pay Rs..500/- as cost.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

          Dated this the   23^RD    day of December, 2011.

G. VASANTHAKUMARI :Sd/-

R. VIJAYAKUMAR : Sd/-

Forwarded/by Order,

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

I n d e x

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1.   Abdul Rahumankunju

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Copy of pass book

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. = Venkitta Krishnan

List of  documents for the opp.party

D1. – Certified copy of SB Account

D2. – Circular

D3. – Reserve Bank circular

.