This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Axis Bank Ltd. against the order dated 26.3.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal No.365 of 2011.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/ complainant has filed the complaint against the petitioner/ opposite party on the averments that on the allurement of the agent of the opposite party on 21.03.2008, he opened saving bank amount no.313010100125826 in the opposite party bank being assured of better services. He was informed that minimum balance should be of Rs.2500/- in his account and thereby complainant deposited amount of Rs.2500/- for the minimum balance on 21.03.2008. The opposite party assured sending of quarterly statements of account to the complainant but when asked by the complainant, the opposite party always gave the false assurances that they will send the same by post. On 02.07.2010 the complainant issued a cheque in favour of Reliance Company, but he was surprised to find that cheque has been dishonoured by the OP on the ground of "insufficient funds" in his account to clear the cheque. The complainant made an enquiry and was informed by OP that there was no "sufficient balance" in his account to encash the cheque. On receiving the account statement of his saving bank account, the complainant found that below noted amounts were deducted from his account without any intimation to him and he was never informed that the amount of Rs.107/- was required to be debited on account of debit card issuance charges. 

3.      It has been alleged that the above-referred amounts have been debited from the account of the complainant illegally and without any notice by OP at any time. The complainant has filed the complaint on 11.11.2010 praying to direct the opposite party to credit the amount of Rs.6440.27 illegally debited from his account and to pay the punitive compensation of Rs.50,000/- for his undue harassment by the opposite party. District Forum vide order dated 19.01.2011 allowed the complaint with Rs.1,000/- as costs and directed opposite party to credit the various sums debited from the account of the complainant as penalty, consolidated charges and service tax, etc. from time to time along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of their deductions till realization. The District Forum further directed opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.5,000/- to complainant and Rs.45,000/- to be deposited in the consumer legal aid account) as exemplary compensation. Opposite party was also directed to issue passbooks to its account holders & every transaction to be recorded in that passbook. State Commission vide order dated 26.03.2015 dismissed the appeal of opposite party.

4.      Hence, opposite party has filed the revision petition against the order dated 26.03.2015.

5.      The respondent/complainant sent a letter that he is a senior citizen and he would not be able to come to this Commission and the matter be decided on the basis of documents. Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner was heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that all the amounts that were deducted from the account of the complainant were in respect of debit card charges or the penalties for not having the minimum balance in the account. When the account was opened, it was clarified that a minimum amount of Rs.2,500/- is required to be maintained as minimum balance atleast on average quarterly basis.  However, the complainant had deposited only Rs.2,500/-, thus, the complainant did not maintain the minimum balance and after more than 2 years he suddenly sent a cheque for clearance, which was not cleared due to less balance in the account. Though both the fora below have passed the order of refund of the amount to the complainant, both the fora below have failed in appreciating rules of the bank. Account opening form is in the form of a contract and if a party contravenes the provision of the contract, the other party is authorized to proceed as per the provision of the contract.  Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank in deducting various amounts from the account of the complainant and the complainant does not deserve any relief.

6.      I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also examined the material on record.  Both the fora below have given concurrent finding on the facts that the bank was not authorized to deduct the amounts from the account of the respondent and therefore, the same has been ordered to be refunded to the account of the complainant along with 8% p.a. interest.  The scope under the revision petition is quite limited as facts cannot be reassessed in the revision petition against the concurrent finding of fact by the fora below as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:-

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

7.      As the amount involved is very meager about Rs.6,000/- only, this Commission on the basis of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company (supra) would not like to reexamine the facts of the case about deductions made by the bank.  However, I feel that the District Forum has ordered refund of the debited amounts along with 8% p.a. interest whereas the savings bank account carries only 4% p.a. interest.  Thus, the amount deducted by the bank should be refunded along with 4% p.a. interest from the respective dates of their deductions from the account instead of 8% p.a. interest as ordered by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission. 

8.      The District Forum has also ordered exemplary compensation of Rs.50,000/- against the petitioner.  Out of this amount, Rs.5,000/- is to be paid to the complainant and Rs.45,000/- remaining amount is to be deposited with the legal aid account of the District Forum.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for awarding this exemplary compensation either to the complainant or to be deposited with the legal aid account of the District Forum. 

9.      Based on the above discussion, the revision petition no.1828 of 2015 is partly allowed and order dated 19.1.2011 of the District Forum in respect of exemplary compensation of Rs.50,000/- is set aside and the rate of interest is reduced from 8% p.a. to 4% p.a. on the amount of refund. With these modifications, the District Forum’s order is upheld and the order dated 26.03.2015 of the State Commission stands consequently modified.  The order be complied by the petitioner bank within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.