DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

            Complaint No. 412

 Instituted on:   15.03.2021

                                                                         Decided on:     03.12.2021

Shivani Singla aged 25 years d/o  Shri  Raj Kumar Singla resident of Shani Dev Mandir,  Street, Sunam Road, Sangrur.                                                         

…. Complainant.     

                                           Versus

Canara Bank, Branch Outside Patiala Gate, Sangrur through its Branch Manager  148 001.

                ….Opposite party 

           For the complainant  : Shri Amit Goyal Advocate             

For OP                     : Exparte.

Quorum                                          

S.P. Sood, President

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

ORDER BY:     

S.P. Sood, President.

1.             Shivani Singla (hereinafter to be  referred as complainant) has filed this complaint alleging inter-alia that since she is maintaining a savings bank account bearing number 2488101005129  with opposite party banker which has been sued through its Branch Manager, so for  these reasons  complainant can well treated to be its consumer.  Further complainant has alleged that in fact she used to be minor when  the above said account was opened under the guardianship of her father but now she has become major. Further complainant has alleged that when the above said saving account was opened, officials of the opposite party banker never talked about the  complainant being obliged to maintain any minimum balance and in case the same will fall below the minimum balance level then some  charges as a penalty will be imposed upon her and some money will be deducted from her account itself. This is how the officials of concerned banker started deducting some amounts from her account on account of failure of complainant to maintain that minimum balance  in her account but it was quite surprising that when the officials of opposite party banker for the first time deducted some amount even at that occasion  the outstanding amount in her account was more than Rs.1000/-. Faced with this situation, complainant procured her account statement  and learnt that in the month of July 2019 despite being  a balance amount of Rs.1004/- in her account still opposite party deducted Rs.41/-  from the said amount and likewise in the month of August 2019 again Rs.30/- was deducted and so on so forth. This is how from July 2019  onwards till 02.12.2020  total sum of Rs.481/- was deducted from her account as penal charges for not maintaining the minimum balance in her account. Somehow or the other when OP did not relent, as such complainant was left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint.  Before concluding complainant again desired that her complaint should be accepted and opposite party be directed to deposit Rs.481/-  which has been imposed as penal charges from 02.07.2019 to 02.012.2020 along with compensation on account of mental agony, harassment to the tune  of Rs.50000/-  and another sum of Rs.5500/-  being  litigation expenses.

2.             After this complaint was duly admitted notice was issued to the opposite party for 18.05.2021. However despite due service when no one appeared on behalf of opposite party then latter was  proceeded against exparte and complainant was called upon to lead her evidence in support of her contention.  During this process  learned counsel for complainant tendered on record her sworn affidavit of  Ex.C-1, photocopy of bank pass book pertaining to her savings bank account Ex.C-2, copy of her Adhaar  card Ex.C-3 and closed evidence.

3.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and have gone through various documents with his valuable assistance.

4.             While opening the arguments learned counsel for  complainant Shri Amit Goyal, Advocate emphasized as to how the officials of opposite party banker fleece their valuable customers under the disguise of imposing minimum balance charges even without disclosing any such provisions or requirement or obligation at the time of opening their accounts with them.  Virtually the same thing has happened in this case as well. Before concluding  learned counsel for the complainant was kind  enough to  disclose that  it was not a question of recovery of amount of Rs.481/- which had been deducted  in all from the complainant’s account between 02.07.2019 till 02.12.2020 but she simply wants to vindicate to her point that this practice adopted by opposite party is bad and same should not be adhered to.  

5.             At the very outset, it is evident that  opposite party banker has not appeared in the court may be it  has nothing to say regarding the grievance put forth by complainant, but otherwise   Ex.C-1 sworn affidavit  as well as Ex.C-2 brings out  clearly as to how on 02.07.2019 despite a sum of Rs.1004/- being there towards the credit of the complainant Ms. Shivani Singla in her above said savings account still a sum  of Rs.41/-  was deducted  from  said account for non- maintaining minimum balance.  Even a careful perusal of her account  statement reveals that in the coming months again varying amounts were deducted  successively for the same reasons.  Even if for the sake of arguments we believe that  when the total  amount towards credit of complainant fell below Rs.1000/-  on 01.08.2019  after Rs.41/- was deducted  on 02.07.2019  from outstanding amount of Rs.1004/- then obviously opposite party banker was well within its right to deduct Rs.30/- thereby leaving balance  amount of Rs.970/-  but when deduction of Rs.41/- on 02.07.2019 itself was not found to be legally tenable  therefore if that deduction would not have been affected the then amount of Rs.1004/- would have remained intact and for that reason there was no occasion for the opposite party banker to have made further deductions from her account.  As such total deduction of Rs.481/- from 02.07.2019 to 02.12.2020 was found to be unjustified thereby implying that officials of opposite party banker were deficient in rendering service to the complainant and rather in a way  they were also found to be resorting to unfair trade practice  as such so her complaint has got merits and same stands allowed exparte and opposite party banker is directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.481/-  alongwith Rs.1000/- as compensation to complainant and also Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses. This order be complied with by the opposite party within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

6.             A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

                                Announced.

                                December 3, 2021.

              (Sarita Garg)  (Vinod Kumar Gulati)     (S.P. Sood)

                   Member              Member                 President