Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/206

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Chand Adv.

16 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 206 of 26.03.2015

Date of Decision            :   16.01.2017 

 

Ajay Kumar, Proprietor of Rias Industries, Near Gaushala, Gaushala Road, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

 

1.HDFC Bank Limited, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parle, Mumbai-400012 through its authorized officer.

2.The Chief Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, B-II-1848, Mata Rani Road, Ludhiana-141008.

3.The Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Kidwai Nagar, Branch Opp. Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. 

…Opposite parties

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT                                     

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBMER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :          None

For OPs                          :          Sh.Rahul Rajput, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant holds current account No.13202560006590 with Op bank branch at Mata Rani Chowk, Ludhiana under the name and style of M/s Rias Industries. Complainant is running his firm for his livelihood. That account was opened under ‘Preferred’ account category with zero balance. So, there was no need to maintain the minimum balance in the account. After sometime, Ops started debiting some sort of amounts to the complainant’s account and that fact was brought to the notice of the Op bank, but they did not pay any heed and continued to debit the amounts in the account of the complainant time and again. On enquiry, Ops failed to give satisfactory reply. On 12.8.2014, the complainant account did show a balance of Rs.-1.72P because of debiting of the amounts. On 13.8.2014, the complainant deposited Rs.5250/- in his account for preparing a draft in favour of PSPC Ltd, so that he may pay the electricity bill. At about 3:05 PM on that day, complainant received SMS alert from the bank regarding crediting of amount of Rs.5250/- in his account. Credit balance was shown as Rs.5248.28P. Immediately after receiving the message, the complainant presented the voucher and cheque for preparing the demand draft/pay order for Rs.5220/- in favour of PSPC Limited, at Ludhiana, but Ops refused to prepare the same for reasons best known to them. On 14.8.2014, balance shown in account of the complainant as on 13.8.2014 was Cr.Rs.52.48.28P. As demand draft/pay order was not prepared and that is why, disconnection of electricity connection of the complainant took place. Notice dated 8.9.2014 was issued to the Ops, in response of which, they apologized and refunded only single amount, which was deducted only on 21.8.2014 illegally. By pleading deficiency in service on the part of Ops, prayer made for refund of the entire amount of Rs.7220/- with interest debited from the account of the complainant illegally. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.1 lac even claimed.

2.                In written statement filed by OP1 to OP3 jointly, it is pleaded interalia as if the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious; complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. Besides, it is claimed that the complainant opened current account under group customer ID34468812. At the time of opening of the account, it was specifically disclosed to the complainant that as per policy of the bank, Rs.5 lac average balance in current account is required, but Rs.2 lac is required as average balance in the saving account per quarter. Despite numerous reminders and telephonic requests, complainant failed to maintain the average quarterly balance. So, in July 2013, account of the complainant was deraced from the preferred portfolio qua which, intimation was given to the complainant through letter sent through Sh.Ramesh Fabrics via Over Night Courier No.2605269273 dated 29.4.2013. Ops as a service gesture reversed the AQB Non-maintenance charges for the period of April to June 2014. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complaint alleged to be filed on vague allegations just for unjust enrichment. Admittedly, the complainant holds current account with Ops, but it is denied that the complainant running the said firm for earning livelihood. It is denied that zero balance account of the complainant was opened. As per policy of the bank, when amount is deposited in the accounts, where the customers are not maintaining AQB, then charges are levied for non-maintenance of AQB and those charges are debited first from the account. Same has been done in this case because of non-maintenance of the AQB by the complainant. Each and every averment of the complaint denied.

3.                Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14 and even he tendered affidavit Ex.CB of Sh.Ramesh Anand and then his counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OP1 to OP3 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Ms.Deepali Dutta, Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Limited and then closed the evidence.

5                 Written arguments submitted by the complainant alone, but not by Ops. Oral arguments of counsel for Ops heard because none appeared for complainant. Records gone through carefully.

6.                Even if Ops failed to submit record qua sending of numerous reminders and telephonic calls for calling upon the complainant to maintain the average quarterly balance, but despite that other material produced on record to be taken into consideration for finding as to whether really the complainant is required to maintain the minimum quarterly balance amount or not? If Ops did not issue the pay order/demand draft even on deposit of Rs.5250/- by the complainant, but despite that deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot be inferred because the document Ex.C12 produced by the complainant itself establishes that the complainant was informed as if he was holding a Trade Current Account, in which, he is required to maintain average as quarterly balance(AQB) of Rs.40,000/-. However, as a service gesture, reversal of AQB non-maintenance charges for the period from April 2014 to June 2014 took place as per this letter Ex.C12 itself. If that action of service gesture of such reversal of amount has taken place, then due to that alone, it cannot be inferred that the complainant as a matter of right entitled to earn the refund of debiting of AQB charges. Rather, terms of the contract between the parties to prevail  for finding as to whether Ops entitled for AQB charges or not?

7.                Letter Ex.C10 dated 13.8.2014 sent by the complainant to Ops for informing as if he is holding account of industries in name of Rias Industries. Even it is pleaded in the para no.1 of the complaint that current account in question held by     the complainant in the name of Rias Industries and as such, the same enough to establish as if the account in question opened by the complainant for business/trading purposes. Even copy of statement of account Ex.C1 shows that the account was  in  the name of M/s Rias Industries and AQB charges were levied. Certainly in Trading Current Account, maintenance of minimum average quarterly balance is required, but in case, the same minimum average quarterly balance is not maintained, then Op bank entitled to charge AQB non maintenance charges. So, if debit of this amount on account of non-maintenance of AQB done by Ops, then no illegality committed by it. It was the responsibility of complainant to get produced the account opening form or the other documents from Op bank for establishing that account in question was a zero balance account. No document in that respect sought to be got produced by filing application or by making any other efforts and as such, in view of the facts as discussed above and material produced on record, it is held that the account was in the name of an industry, due to which, the claim of the Ops fully believable that account of the complainant was a trading account, requiring maintenance of AQB, failing which, charges were leviable. If that be the position, then no deficiency committed by Ops by debiting the AQB non-maintenance charges.

8.                As a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

9.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

         

                   (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                        (G.K. Dhir)

                                                Member                                                President

Announced in Open Forum                                                              Dated:16.01.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.