Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/365

Axis Bank Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Brijinder Kumar Mittal - Opp.Party(s)

Mrs. Devinder Jit Dhatt

26 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                               PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.365 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 25.02.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:   26.03.2015

 

Axis Bank Ltd., The Mall, Ferozepur City, through its Branch Manager                                                                                                                                                          …..Appellant/Opposite party no.1

         

                                      Versus

 

Brijender Kumar Mittal, aged 65 years, son of Nathu Ram Mittal, resident of Kucha Bawa Tara Singh, New Dev Samaj College, Ferozepur City

 

                                                          …..Respondent/Opposite Party No.2

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 19.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

 

          For the appellant              :         Mrs. Devinderjit Dhall, Advocate.

          For the respondent          :         Sh.Rohit Garg, Advocate

 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant (the opposite party in the complaint) has directed this appeal against  respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging  order dated 19.01.2011 of District Forum Ferozepur, accepting the complaint of the complainant, now respondent in the appeal, directing  OP now appellant 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% per annum and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as punitive compensation. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appeal herein.

2.      The complainant Brijinder Kumar Mittal has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that on the allurement of the agent of the OP, he opened saving bank amount no.313010100125826 in the bank of the OP, being assured of better services. He was informed that minimum balance should be of Rs.2500/- in his account and complainant deposited amount of Rs.2500/- the minimum balance to open saving bank account. The OP assured sending of quarterly statements of account to the complainant on 02.07.2010. The complainant issued cheque in favour of the 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 have been 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. 

Date	Amount Debited
24.03.2008	107.00
30.06.2008	842.70
29.09.2008	842.70
30.12.2008	736.60
30.01.2009	4.00
31.03.2009	56.00
30.4.2009	927.48
26.9.2009	672.52
24.10.2009	4.00
09.07.2010	386.05
24.07.2010	56.00
24.07.2010	1805.00
	6440.27

 

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 directing the OP 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 OP.

3.      Upon notice, OP filed the written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable and is bad for mis-joinder of the parties. On merits, it was denied by OP that its agent allured the complainant to open saving back account in the bank on 21.3.2009 . It was admitted that the amount of Rs.2500/- was required as minimum balance for opening the saving bank account with OP bank and complainant opened the above-said saving bank account by depositing Rs.2500/- with it on 21.3.2008. It was further admitted that the cheque of the complainant dated 2.7.2010 bounced on account of "insufficient funds" in his account. The minimum balance was required by OP for smooth operation of the account  and it was not fulfilled by the complainant in this case. System deduct the charges of two quarters and balance in the account of the complainant became less than Rs.35,000/- to encash the cheque. It was denied that complainant was surprised to ascertain that amounts have been deducted illegally and un-authorizedly by the OP. It was further pleaded by the OP, that when complainant failed to keep the minimum balance in his saving bank account, system started deducting the charges on account of consolidated charges and service charges in the account of the complainant. On 1.07.2008, the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- in his saving bank account and he deposited Rs.30,000/- in FDR and balance in the account of the complainant and it remained Rs.1568.30 paise. On account of minimum balance in the complainant's account on 20.09.2008, consolidated charges and service charges were deducted. Similarly, on 30.12.2008, same charges were deducted and in this way on 30.12.2008, the account balance of the complainant became zero. On 30.01.2009 the service tax and consolidated charges were deducted from the account of the complainant and his balance on 30.1.2009 became zero. The account of the complainant remained inoperative from 24.10.2009 to 2.7.2010 and due to this reason, proxy lien was created in the account of the complainant and the charges of two quarters i.e. from 24.10.2009 to 2.7.2010 were debited from the account of the complainant. The complainant was fully aware of his saving bank account and he did not bother to maintain the account and hence,  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4,      The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Brijinder Kumar Ex.C-1, copies of statement of account Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-3. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Kuldarsh Thaper Branch Manager of Axis Bank Limited Ex.R-1, copy of saving bank account regulations Ex.R-2. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum, Ferozepur  accepted  the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 19.1.2011 directing the OP to credit the various sums debited from the account of the complainant  and to pay 50,000/- as exemplary compensation, out of which the amount of Rs.5000/- was to be paid to the complainant for mental harassment and amount of Rs.45,000/- was to be deposited in Legal Aid account of the District Forum. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, Ferozelpur. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the OP now appellant.

6.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case. The evidence on the record has also been examined by us coupled with the respective pleadings and affidavits placed on record by the parties. Ex.C-1 is affidavit of the complainant Brijinder Kumar Mittal on the record and this affidavit is verbatim reiteration of the complaint version on oath by him. Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 are statements of accounts of the complainant. To rebut it, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Kuldarsh Thapar Branch Manager Ex.R-1 and Ex.C-2 is copy of saving bank regulations. We find that District Forum observed in the order under appeal that no notice was issued by the OP to intimate the complainant regarding less amount i.e. the required minimum balance amount in his account. The OP deducted amount unauthorizedly from the account of the complainant, as observed by the District Forum in the order under challenge this appeal. We find that  minimum balance amount in the account  was required to be Rs.2500/- for opening the bank account and this amount was deposited by the complainant and he opened this saving bank account. The complainant never withdrew any amount out of the deposited amount of Rs.2500/- for opening his saving bank account. The OP debited Rs.107/- from the account of the complainant for debit card charges without any intimation to the complainant. The amount in the account of the complainant fell below Rs.2500/- on account of deduction by debiting of Rs.107/- , which were debited for penalty in not maintaining the minimum balance. This amount of Rs.107/- was debited by the OP without any notice to the complainant. The OP never asked the complainant to deposit the amount of Rs.107/-, so as to keep up his minimum balance of Rs.2500/-.  This amount has  been   debited by  the OP from  the  account  of  the  complainant  and  thereby  amount  of

 Rs.2500/- was brought down therewith. The OP also deducted the amount as service charges from the saving bank account of the complainant from time to time, as found by us without any withdrawal of any amount out of it by the complainant. The OP did not stop imposing penalty in the account of the complainant and rather preferred to create proxy lien in the account of the complainant to deduct penalty amount as well. The complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- in his account and OP deducted the penalty charges for the past period from his account without any knowledge of the complainant as well. We also find, as contended by the counsel for the complainant, before us that no passbook was ever issued by the OP to the complainant regarding transactions of credit and debit to intimate him about the same. The submission of counsel for OP is that the statement was sent by the head office, but this contention has been rightly rejected by the District Forum finding that they are one and the same entity.

7.      Now the matter revolves around this point whether deductions charges of Rs.6440.27 by the OP are justified or not. The counsel for the OP relied upon Clause 3 of the Regulations, copy of which recorded the fact to the effect that the balance in the account must adhere to the minimum quarterly average balance stipulation laid down by the bank and communicated to you at the time of opening of the account. Non-maintenance of the quarterly average balance will attract applicable penalty on a quarterly basis and on a date determined by the bank. We find that the OP could not bind down to the complainant  that this penalty could be imposed at the back of the depositor without informing him about it. No instruction of Reserve Bank of India are shown to us that no notice was required to be issued to the complainant about such matter. Even otherwise, counsel for the complainant contended that was complainant kept in darkness about any regulations in this case. No rules has been shown to us  or guidelines of Reserve Bank of India have been brought to our notice that the OP could deduct the amount by keeping the depositor in darkness about the same without issuing any notice to him. We find that banks  usually issue the debit card free of charge and no annual fee should be levied on such cards. We are in agreement with the findings of the District Forum to the effect that no passbook was issued to the complainant by the OP nor any issuance of statement of account has been proved on the record by the OP. The OP debited the amount from the account of complainant as referred above, without any notice to the complainant. Consequently, we do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum to take a different view therefrom. The order of the District Forum dated 19.1.2011 calls for no interference in our opinion and same is hereby dismissed.

8.      In view of our above discussion, the appeal is without any merit and same is hereby dismissed.      

9.      The appellant had deposited the amount of Rs.25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the complainant by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant. Remaining amount be paid within 45 days time from the date of receipt of this order by the appellant to the complainant.

10.     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                           (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

March 26   2015.                                                            

(ravi)