Delhi

North East

CC/149/2016

R.D. Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

06 May 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 149/16

 

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Ram Dutta Sharma S/o K. L. Sharma R/o- House no. T-2, Street no. 7 Gautampuri, Brahampuri Road Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Central Bank of India New Seelampur Branch D-58, Main Road Brahampuri Delhi-110053	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION   :

08.06.2016 06.05.2019 06.05.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. The facts as set out in the complaint are that in beginning of April 2016, the complainant noticed two debit entries to the tune of  Rs. 900/- on account of quarterly minimum balance charge and  Rs. 126/- as service tax thereon dated 30.09.2015 in his savings bank account passbook of account no. 1187133870  held with OP bank. The complainant lodged a written complaint dated 05.04.2016 before the Senior Branch Manager of OP regarding the above mentioned disputed debit on ground of not having given any undertaking to keep minimum balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- in his account for the quarter July 2015 to September 2015 since it is a savings account specifically a pension account and asked for a certified copy of any rules / regulations of service tax act empowering the bank to levy such a tax. The complainant submitted in this regard that a savings bank account holder availing cheque book facility is required to keep a minimum balance of     Rs. 1,000/- as per banking rules and regulations and submitted that his account balance from June 2015 to September 2015 oscillated between Rs. 7,00,000/- to Rs. 91,000/- approx. The OP did not reply to the said complaint letter and therefore the complainant wrote two reminder letters dated 26.04.2016 & 07.05.2016 seeking explanation for the debits. The complainant further submitted that vide internal e-mail dated 30.04.2016 by OP, reference was made to the case of complainant of debit of more than Rs. 1,000/- made from his account despite having sufficient balance of more than Rs. 1,000/- and request for reversal of the amount from back end. Lastly, complainant submitted that the RBI notification with effect from 2015 clearly directed all banks to stop imposing charges for non maintenance of minimum balance in savings account failing which the account holder is at liberty to approach banking ombudsman and various private bank confirmed to conforming to such directives and complainant in this regard placed reliance on the newspaper cutting of article published in National English Daily Times of India Delhi Edition dated 11.05.2016. Therefore, the complainant file the present complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of OP for having debited his account to the tune of Rs. 1026/- against the establish banking regulations causing complainant mental and physical harassment and prayed for issuance of direction to the OP to reverse the debit charges of Rs. 1026/- back in his savings account with interest thereon with effect from 30.09.2015 to 30.11.2015 and thereafter on the said sum from 01.12.2015 to 31.05.2016 and on the arrived sum from 01.06.2016 till date of credit in his account alongwith compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- mental and physical torture and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. The complainant has filed copy of complaint letters to OP dated 05.04.2016, 26.04.2016 & 07.05.2016 demanding explanation for debit entries in his savings account, copy of internal e-mail dated 30.04.2016 of OP for reversal of debited amount in complainant’s account, copy of newspaper article published in TOI, Delhi Edition regarding no negative balance in savings bank account and copy of passbook of complainant of account held with OP highlighting the disputed entries dated 30.09.2015 of Rs. 900/- & Rs. 126/- towards quarterly minimum balance  charges and service tax respectively.
3. Notice was issued to the OP which entered appearance and filed a hand written representation / reply dated 22.08.2016 on its letter head from B/O New Seelampur, Delhi addressed to the Hon’ble President of this Forum wherein the OP, while admitting the debit of Rs. 1026/- from complainant’s account, submitted that it being Gold Savings Account in which one has to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the said sum was debited therefore. However, the OP has already converted the said account into a normal account in which Rs. 1000/- is required as minimum balance quarterly and the amount debited has already been reversed on 08.10.2015 and interest thereon has been paid @ of 4% for seven days and urged that the case of the complainant was false and prayed for closure of the same in view of reversed charges with interest. The OP attached the statement of the account highlighting the credit entry of Rs. 900/- & Rs. 126/- made on 08.10.2015.
4. Rejoinder was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to the defence of OP and submitted that the OP never gave him either copy of their reply or any response to his three applications made before filing of the present complaint and though he acknowledged receipt of the credit amount of Rs. 1026/- made by OP on 08.10.2015, objected to the same as being clubbed by OP simply as transfer from 60124024435 without giving any details of the credit reversal  for determining under what head the reversal was made and by whom. The complainant further objected to very little and nominal interest given by the OP on the amount and that too for one day less and prayed for relief claimed.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant exhibiting the documents relied upon / filed alongwith the complaint.
6. OP did not appear after 16.09.2016 i.e. after filing its reply / representation and was therefore proceedings against ex-parte vide order dated 20.08.2018.
7. Written argument was filed by the complainant in reassertion of his grievance against the OP.
8. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the complainant and have examined the documents placed on records. It is not in dispute that the complainant’s account was debited to the tune of Rs. 1026/- by OP on 30.09.2015 for not maintaining minimum account balance in the quarter July 2015 to September 2015 and inclusive of service tax charges levied thereon. The copy of passbook filed by the complainant alongwith the complaint shows the credit entry dated 18.10.2015 of Rs. 1026/- made vide code no. 60124024435. The same has been confirmed by the OP vide its representation dated 22.08.2016 filed before us supported by the statement of account. To an extent we are in agreement with the contention of the complainant that there was no clarity under what head and by whom was the said amount credited on 18.10.2015 in his account since nothing can be ascertained from the code given against the credit entry proven from the very fact that the complainant himself has filed the said documents (passbook entry) alongwith the complaint in total ignorance that the said entry pertained to the credit reversal itself. Least OP could have done would have been to inform the complainant about the reversal entry in response to his three correspondence made to the OP between April 2016 to May 2016 which probably would have avoided filing of the present complaint  in June 2016 since the same arose due to non responsiveness by the OP towards the complainant. The ambiguity of credit reversal and internal lack of communication is also manifest in the internal e-mail dated 30.04.2016 from BM of OP requesting to look into the matter of the complainant regarding debit charges from his account and reversal from back end which speaks volumes about the OP itself being not clear of reversal already having been made by its own office six months ago in October 2015. It was only when the complaint was filed and notice was issued to the OP and on OP filing the reply / representation before this Forum that the complainant got to know that the credit of Rs. 1026/- dated 08.10.2016 made by the OP pertained to reversal of the two debits in question.
9. In the entire scenario keeping in view the totality of facts, we are of the considered view that notwithstanding the facts that OP reversed the debit entries of Rs. 1026/- made by it from complainant’s account on 30.09.2015 and on 08.10.2015 i.e. in a week’s time with some interest thereon and much before filing of the present complaint in June 2016, it cannot be overlooked that OP did not redress the grievance of the complainant despite his personal visits, several correspondence and his seniority of age which could have well averted this litigation. We therefore, on this account find OP guilty of deficiency in service in having failed to extend customer friendly approach and show responsiveness / co-operation towards an octogenarian as much as there is not a single correspondence / reply placed on record by OP in the three Letters of the complainant between April 2016 - May 2016 and therefore partly allow the complaint to the extent of compensation for harassment and litigation charges directing the OP to pay to the tune of Rs.  3000/- (all inclusive) to the complainant. No interest is being awarded in view of prompt reversal and interest on reversal entries being granted by OP. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.  
10.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  06.05.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member