MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.       By this order of ours we dispose off 2 appeals bearing No.578 of 2009  titled as State Bank of India Vs. Dr.M.L.Bansal and appeal No. 627 of 2009 titled as Dr.M.L.Bansal Vs. State Bank of India arising out of the order dated 8.9.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) in complaint case No. 750 of 2009.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the complainant opened his current account with State Bank of India (OP) on 1.12.2006 and while opening the account, he was demanded Rs.5,000/- as minimum amount for maintaining the same. The complainant had deposited the said amount and later on, when he visited the State Bank of India for getting his statement of account, the complainant was shocked to see that Rs.1350/- was deducted four times (i.e. total Rs.5400/-) from the account of the complainant by the State Bank of India.  The complainant submitted that on enquiry from bank, it revealed that the minimum balance for current account was Rs.10,000/- whereas at the time of opening the current account, the complainant was informed that a minimum balance required for the current account was Rs.5,000/- only. The complainant demanded the OP for refund of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5,400/- but no response was received from the side of OP Bank.  The above said act of OP amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.   

3.        Reply was filed by the OP and admitted that on 1.12.2006 the complainant had opened a current account with the OP Bank but it was denied that OP bank demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant for opening the current account. It was disclosed by the OP bank to the complainant that minimum balance for current account should be Rs.10,000/- and in case the complainant failed to deposit the above said amount,  Rs.1,350/- would be deducted from the account of complainant and this condition had also displayed on the notice board of the bank.  It was submitted that the complainant himself failed to maintain the minimum balance amount in his account as he himself did not abide by the terms & condition of the bank and therefore, the OP bank rightly deducted Rs.5,400/- from the account of complainant.  All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.     The learned District Forum allowed the complaint as the OP Bank has been guilty of deducting Rs.5400/- from the account of the complainant without any basis. The OP was directed to reverse the entries regarding the aforesaid amount of Rs.5400/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and also to pay Rs.1100/- as costs of litigation, failing which it would be liable to pay the same along with penal interest @ 12% p.a. since the date of above debits till the amount is actually paid to the complainant.

6.        Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal bearing No. 578 of 2009 was filed by the OP (State Bank of India) and submitted that the learned District Forum has wrongly appreciated the fact that at the time of opening the account, the complainant was told that a minimum balance of Rs.5,000/- was required and further in case the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- was required then account was not to be opened for Rs.5,000/- whereas these facts are totally wrong. It is submitted by the appellant that the complainant is a doctor and not an illiterate person and the complainant has gone through the instructions before opening of the account. The action taken by the bank which is totally inconformity with the instructions cannot be said to be unjustified from any angle. It is only when the respondent/complainant some how failed to maintain requisite balance in his account and the bank deducted the required amount, he filed a complaint to fill up his monetary loss. Otherwise under the circumstances explained above, neither there was any occasion to file such complaint nor the complaint was maintainable under the Consumer Act. The impugned order is totally wrong, illegal and against the relevant instructions and the learned District Forum has not applied its judicious mind while deciding the complaint rather has mis-appreciated the facts as well as instructions. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned order may kindly be set aside. 

7.     Other appeal bearing No.627 of 2009 was filed by the complainant Dr.M.L.Bansal in which it has been submitted that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that appellant is also entitled to interest on the amount wrongly debited from his account as well as compensation for mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort. The OP has filed a false and frivolous affidavit and written statement by alleging that minimum requirement is Rs.10,000/- to maintain the current account but as per rules of S.B.I. minimum requirement for individual current account is still Rs.5,000/- which are clearly displayed at the website of State Bank of India. It is submitted that Annexure R-1 placed on record by the OP bank is meant for Business Current Accounts. The OP bank is now estopped from asking the complainant to keep a minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- because they have opened the account with minimum balance of Rs.5,000/- with the understanding that Rs.5,000/- is the only requirement for such account to be run. The OP bank wrongly debited the amount from 31.12.2006 till 31.12.2007 and has been utilizing the money till now and hence appellant/complainant is entitled to interest on this amount. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the respondent/OP may be directed to pay the interest @ 18% p.a. till realization along with compensation for mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort to the tune of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.5500/- as litigation costs to the appellant/complainant.

8.     We have heard Sh.K.G.Sharma, Advocate for State Bank of India and Ms.Anuradha Gupta, Advocate for Dr.M.L.Bansal and carefully gone through the file.

9.     After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, we have come to the conclusion that the statement of account which has been placed on record by the complainant reveals that the above said account was opened with a deposit of Rs.5,000/-. Had there been any pre-condition  that minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- is must for opening a current account. Then the onus is on the appellant that why they have opened the account with Rs.5,000/- if the minimum requirement is for a current account was Rs.10,000/-. Apparently the contention of the complainant that the minimum requirement for running a current account was Rs.5,000/- in case of individual accounts is seems to be correct. The learned counsel for the complainant while arguing this point relied on the Annexure P-1 that the official of the bank had informed the complainant that only Rs.5,000/- was needed to open the current account and therefore, the current account was opened with that amount as the minimum requirement.

10.   A cross appeal bearing No.627 of 2009 was filed by the complainant Dr.M.L.Bansal, the main grouse of the complainant that the learned District Forum has erred by not awarding interest on the amount of Rs.5400/- which was wrongly deducted by the respondent/OP bank.

11.   In the appeal filed by the complainant, there is delay of 25 days in filing the appeal. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent Sh.K.G.Sharma, Advocate has strongly opposed the application for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal, and has argued that the appeal is time barred and hence, not maintainable. Cross appeals have been filed against the impugned order by the complainant as well as by the OP. The appeal filed by the OP has been admitted, no purpose will be served of the condonation of delay is not permitted in filing this appeal by the complainant. In view of the above, we condone the delay of 25 days in filing the appeal by the complainant.

12.   We are of the confirmed opinion that the order passed by the learned District Forum is reasonable and the learned District Forum has rightly directed the respondent/OP bank to reverse the entries regarding the aforesaid amount. Further more, the learned District Forum has rightly awarded the amount of Rs.1,100/- as litigation expenses. According to us, which is sufficient to meet the ends of justice and therefore, no interference is called for. Under these facts and circumstances, we dismiss the appeal filed by the State Bank of India as devoid of any merit without any order as to costs.

13.   The appeal filed by the complainant i.e. Dr.M.L.Bansal is also dismissed as devoid of any merit without any order as to costs.

14.        Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

Pronounced.

1^st April, 2010.