DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: 71/2015
Date of Institution: 24.04.2015
Date of Decision: 20.10.2015.
Naresh Kumar S/o Manohar Lal R/o Markanda Gali Dhillwan Road, Near Suriya Colony, Tapa Mandi, Tehsil Tapa and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1) HDFC Bank Head Office, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013, through its Manager.
2) HDFC Bank Ltd., Near Old Bus Stand, Tapa Mandi, District Barnala, through its Manager.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Gagandeep Garg counsel for the complainant
Sh. AK Jindal counsel for the opposite parties
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
Naresh Kumar son of Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred as Act) against HDFC Bank and another (hereinafter referred as opposite parties).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the complainant opened one saving account in the bank of the opposite party No. 2 on 21.5.2011 and minimum amount to open the new account was zero balance prescribed. The opposite party No. 2 issued Account No. 233215300000888 and with the opening of the said account the complainant is frequently operating and maintaining the account, so the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. It is further averred that the complainant is depositing and withdrawing the amount from the above said account on regular intervals. But when the complainant obtained the account statement of his account on 20.2.2015 from the period of 16.5.2011 to 20.2.2015, the complainant found that a sum of Rs. 11,255/- was deducted from his account on different dates from 15.1.2012 to 20.2.2015. Then the complainant immediately approached the opposite party No. 2 and inquired about the said deductions from the concerned Manager of the bank but told that the complainant has not maintained his account with minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/- in the said account, so the bank has deducted that amount. The complainant further averred that the opposite parties never informed at any time by way of telephone or registered post nor by any other means regarding the said deductions despite the fact that the mobile phone number is very much with the bank from the very opening of the account. The complainant further averred that he personally approached the opposite party No. 2 at their office and requested them that the deductions were illegal and against banking law and without any prior notice and further requested to correct the same. However the opposite parties refused to credit the said amount in his account. Thus, it is alleged that the act and conduct of the opposite parties falls within the definition of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) To credit the amount of Rs. 11,255/- in his account alongwith interest up to date.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties filed a joint written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus standi, frivolous complaint, jurisdiction, abuse of process of law, limitation and not proper verification. On merits, they have admitted the opening of the saving account of the complainant with them. However, they have denied the opening of the account with zero balance. They further averred that the complainant opened the saving account filling an account opening form in favour of the opposite parties, which was duly read over and explained to the complainant and after admitting the same as correct the complainant put his signatures upon the same. The complainant himself admitted this fact as correct that the complainant maintains average quarterly balance of Rs. 5,000/- in his said saving account. It is further averred that even under the head of important instruction; instructions mentioned upon the account statement, which is filled by the complainant alongwith his complaint. The complainant availed copy of his account statement from time to time including the said important information to maintain AQB in the said account. However, while the complainant opened his account with the opposite party bank, all the terms and conditions were explained to the complainant/customers and complainant had acknowledged the same by signing the declaration. It is further averred that the terms and conditions mentioned in the declaration is binding upon him. It is also averred that afterwards submission of account opening form, the opposite party bank sent a welcome kit to its customers by courier at their given address. There is also the bank provides the details of schedule of charges alongwith following documents/items.-
i) Welcome letter addressed to first applicant for Saving Account customers indicating, account number, customer ID etc.
ii) Savings account Terms and conditions, Services and fee.
iii) Cheque book.
iv) Welcome letter addressed to first applicant for Debit Card users debit card.
v) Debit Card usage guide.
vi) Code of Bank's Commitment to customers.
vii) Information leaflets of other banking services etc.
4. It is further averred that the complainant has nowhere in the complaint disputed the receipt of the welcome kit. As the welcome kit has been received by the complainant, he cannot deny the receipt of the schedule of charges and welcome letter which forms part of welcome kit. If the complainant has any doubt in respect of the terms and conditions after the receipt of the welcome kit then he should have immediately approached the bank. However, this has not been done by the complainant. It is further averred that, complainant failed to maintain AQB in the saving account from 15.1.2012 and the complainant filed the present complaint on 24.4.2015 i.e after lapse of period of three years, which is beyond limitation. It is further submitted that the account statement, which was enclosed by the complainant with his complaint, clearly mentioned on the particulars where the name and address of the complainant is mentioned that the said account opening date is 21.5.2011 expected AMB (Average Minimum Balance) of Rs. 5,000/-. It is further averred that the complainant filed the present complaint against the opposite parties after getting legal consultation and drags the opposite parties in false litigation. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of statement of account from 16.5.2011 to 20.2.2015 Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account from 21.2.2015 to 26.6.2015 Ex.C-3, copy of circulars of RBI Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.
6. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite parties have tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Garg Branch Manager Ex.OP-1, copy of account opening form Ex.OP-2, copy of statement of account Ex.OP-3, copy of circular No. 47 dated 20.11.2014 Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through evidence tendered by both the parties.
8. The first objection raised by the opposite parties is that the present complaint is barred by limitation. It was contended that the complainant failed to maintain minimum balance in his saving account from 15.1.2012 to 24.4.2015 i.e. after a lapse of period of more than three years and accordingly it is barred by limitation.
9. On the other hand, it is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that the opposite parties deducted amount on regular intervals for the last three years, so cause of action is continuing and till today they are deducting the charges. This Forum is of the view that since the opposite parties are continuously deducting the charges, which are under challenge, therefore, the cause of action is continuing one and the present complaint is filed within limitation.
10. Now the next point is whether the complainant has opened his account with the minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/- or with Zero balance. To clarify this point it is relevant to refer the account opening form Ex.O.P-2. On the third page of the form, it is mentioned that the Average Quarterly Balance (AQB) required to be maintained for this account is Rs. 5,000/-. Apart from this form it is also relevant to refer the statement of account Ex.C-3, wherein the date of opening of account mentioned as 21.5.2011 and expected AMB to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and account Branch mentioned as Tapa District Barnala. The contention of the Ld. Counsel for the complainant is that the complainant was illiterate and the form was not filled by the complainant and at the time of filling the account form this condition was not told by the Bank. This contention is untenable. The complainant used to receive the statement of account, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the minimum balance is to be maintained to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and this point is decided against the complainant.
11. Now the next point is whether the deductions/charges made by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs. 11,255/- are legal and justified. It is relevant to refer circular Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 issued by the RBI in this regard. Circular Ex.C-4 is of dated December 26, 2002 regarding minimum balance in saving bank account addressed to all Commercial Banks, which runs as:-
Minimum balance in savings bank accounts
Reserve Bank of India has not issued any guidelines regarding the minimum balance to be maintained in savings bank accounts. The banks have been prescribing the minimum balance to be maintained taking into consideration the cost involved in maintaining and servicing such accounts and also levying specific charges, if minimum balance is not maintained. There is, however, no uniform approach in this regard.
2. It has been reported to us that banks do not apprise the customers about the requirement of minimum balance at the time of opening of the accounts and also do not highlight the implication such as levying of charges etc., if the minimum balance is not maintained. Banks also do not ensure to inform the customers about any change in the minimum balance requirement.
3. We have had the matter reviewed and advise that henceforth banks should inform customers regarding the requirement of minimum balance at the time of opening the account in a transparent manner. Any subsequent changes in this regard should also be intimated to the account holders. The banks may decide the manner in which the information is made available to the customers.
12. The other circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India is of dated November 20, 2014 addressed to all Scheduled Commercial Banks, wherein it is mentioned in the Annexure as:-
Levy of charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance in savings bank account shall be subject to the following additional guidelines:-
(i) In the event of a default in maintenance of minimum balance/average minimum balance as agreed to between the bank and customer, the bank should notify the customer clearly by SMS/email/letter etc., that in the event of the minimum balance not being restored in the account within a month from the date of notice, penal charges will be applicable.
(ii) In case the minimum balance is not restored within a reasonable period, which shall not be less than one month from the date of notice of shortfall, penal charges may be recovered under intimation to the account holder.
(iii) The policy on penal charges to be so levied may be decided with the approval of Board of the bank.
(iv) The penal charges should be directly proportionate to the extent of shortfall observed. In other words, the charges should be a fixed percentage levied on the amount of difference between the actual balance maintained and the minimum balance as agreed upon at the time of opening of account. A suitable slab structure for recovery of charges may be finalized.
(v) It should be ensured that such penal charges are reasonable and not out of line with the average cost of providing the services.
(vi) It should be ensured that the balance in the savings account does not turn into negative balance solely on account of levy of charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance.
13. Now the question arises whether the opposite parties have made deductions/charges in compliance of the above said circulars. It is specifically mentioned in the ibid circulars that at the time of opening of account manner should be transparent and it is stipulated that one month prior notice is necessary before deducting charges and the notice is either by telephone or by way of any mean.
14. Perusal of the record further shows that Mobile No. 9815331111 of the complainant was very much with the opposite parties (as depicted in the statement of account Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3) and account opening form and moreover, there is no denial to this effect. There is no evidence on record to show that the notice was given to the complainant either by way of writing some letter or by any other means so as to make vigilant to the customer for deduction of charges.
15. In the absence of any evidence regarding intimation to be supplied prior to the deduction of charges, it cannot be held that the deduction of Rs. 11,255/- was made in accordance with the ibid circulars, therefore on this point the deductions made by the opposite parties to the tune of Rs. 11,255/- is not justified and therefore the opposite parties are not entitled to the same.
16. As a result of the above discussion, the present complaint of the complainant is accepted to the extent that the opposite parties are not entitled to any charges/deductions on account of minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/-. Perusal of the account statement shows that the entire charges of Rs. 11,255/- due to the non maintenance of minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/-. However, the opposite parties are directed to give the credit of the said amount by crediting the same in the account of the complainant. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to the complainant on account of compensation. Further, the opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs. 2,100/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. This order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
20th Day of October, 2015
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Karnail Singh)
Member
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member
