DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,MANSA. Complaint No.66/20.05.2008 Decided on : 25.06.2008 Ram Parkash Jindal S/o Sh.Shiv Ram, retired Head Cashier of SBOP, Sant Ram Advocate Street, Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Water Works Road, Mansa through its Branch Manager. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Complainant with Sh.Sanjeev Kumar his counsel. Opposite party exparte.. Before: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER: Ram Parkash (hereinafter called as the complainant) has filed the present complaint against Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd., Mansa through its Branch Manager (hereinafter called as opposite party) for issuance of a direction to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.550/- with interest w.e.f the date of its deduction and also pay him Rs.5,000/- as litigation costs. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 8.11.2006 in FDR A/c No.932336 for one year @ 8 % per annum with the OP bank. The complainant took OD Rs.45,000/- on Contd........2 : 2 : 18.8.2007 @ 10 % per annum against the said FDR. At the time of maturity of FDR, the OP credited the whole amount of Rs,.54,521/- on 8.11.2007 in OD A/c No.12230400000298, instead of deducting the outstanding amount of Rs.45,225/- in OD account. The remaining of Rs.9,285 was to be paid to the complainant, but the OP had paid a sum of Rs.8,735/- only through cheque bearing No.25315 on 8.11.2007, thereby paying less amount of Rs.550/-, which were deducted on account of bank induced account closure charges on 8.11.2007 without any prior intimation to the complainant about this alleged deduction. The action of the opposite party is stated to be illegal, as no notice was ever served upon the complainant before deducting the amount in question. A letter dtd. 10.11.2007 and notice dtd 22.11.2007 was served by the complainant upon the opposite party to refund the amount in question, but the opposite party failed to do so. Thus, the opposite party is stated to be deficient in service towards the complainant. The complainant alleges to have suffered mental, as well as physical harassment on account of the said deficiency. Hence this complaint. None appeared on behalf of the opposite party despite receiving dasti summons by the authorized signatory of the bank on 22.5.08, hence it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.06.2008 of this Forum. The complainant has placed on record his own affidavit Ext. C-1; Statement of Account in respect of Account No. 122304000002981 dated 8.11.2007 Ext.C-2; letter dated 10.11.2007 Ext.C-3 and Notice dated 22.11.2007 Ext.C-4 both addressed to the Manager of OP Bank in support of his allegation. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Contd........3 : 3 : counsel for the complainant only and carefully gone through the record of the case. Perusal of Exhibit C-2, OD FDR RET in respect of Account No. 122304000002981of the complainant clearly indicates that an amount of Rs.550/- has been deducted on account of Bank Induced Acct Closure CHGS on 8.11.2007. The opposite party bank never bothered to contest the claim despite the receipt of summons on 22.5.2008 by their authorized signatory to rebutt the allegations. Action of the bank in charging the bank closure charges without giving intimation to its customer/complainant is unjust and improper because no notice thereof was ever given to the complainant. The action of the bank is bad in law and cannot sustain in law. Failure of the opposite party bank to contest this claim also makes its bonafides doubtful. A prior notice was required to be served upon the complainant which the opposite party has failed to do. Therefore, the action on the part of the opposite party was illegal. Opposite party definitely is held to be deficient in service towards the complainant in not informing the complainant before making any such deduction from his account. The deduction of Rs.550/- at the time of account closure from the account of the complainant without prior intimation is thus rendered illegal and the opposite party is required to refund these charges . The allegations leveled in the complaint are supported by an affidavit exhibit C-1 of the complainant. Relying on the affidavit and other documents produced by the complainant only, we have no option but to accept this complaint on the ground that charges have been levied unilaterally. As a consequence of the foregoing reasons, we are constrained Contd........4 : 4 : to allow the complaint. The opposite party bank is directed to refund amount of Rs.550/- with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deduction from the account of the complainant on 8.11.2007 till realization. The opposite party is also burdened with Rs.2,000/- by way of litigation costs payable to the complainant. The loss in this case being only monetary, no mental harassment can be considered to have been suffered by the complainant. Therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation in this regard. Compliance of the order be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charges under the rules and file be arranged, indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 25.06.2008 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
