DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.248/2014
Sh. Ram Bhagat Tayal
S/o Late Sh. Jyoti Prasad Tayal
R/o M-5, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016 ….Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank,
through its Manager
A-24, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 02.07.14 Date of Order : 19.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he had opened a “no frill” saving bank account No.04671000020384 as advised by the representative of the OP and issued a cheque No. 0432372 dated 27.11.10 in favour of OP. In the month of March, 2013 the OP unauthorizedly deducted an amount of Rs.280.90/- unilaterally. Similar deductions were made on 02.04.13, 17.08.13, 04.09.13, 11.10.13, 09.11.13, 09.12.13, 10.01.14, 12.02.14 & 13.03.14. The total deductions made by the OP were for Rs.2809/-. The OP again deducted an amount of Rs.393.26 on 10.04.14 and Rs.393.26 on 13.05.14. Therefore, the OP is liable to refund the said amount alongwith 18% interest. On 22.02.14 he issued a cheque No. 530494 dated 22.04.14 in the favour of BRPL in CA No.102466947 for Rs.2330/- towards the payment of electricity bill for his residence. The cheque was returned as dishonoured and the BRPL charged an amount of Rs.200/- on account of handling charges for the dishonoured cheque alognwith penalty. As per the RBI guidelines issued to all the banks such charges cannot be levied unilaterally from the account holder and, hence, the OP bank is under an obligation to inform account holder that he had defaulted in maintaining the average balance and thus being levied the said charges (RBI Notification No. DBOD.Dir.BC.53/13.10.00/2002-03 dated 26-12.2002). The action of the OP humiliated him by dishonouring the cheque for a sum of Rs.2330/- for electricity bill. Claiming deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to refund the balance lying at the time of closure of the account
- Direct the OP to refund Rs.3595.52 on account of illegal deductions under the garb of minimum balance.
- Direct the OP to pay compensation for mental torture in the tune of Rs.20,000/- and litigation expenses Rs.11,000/- including interest @ 18% from March, 2013 till the date of payment.
OP in the written statement inter-alia has stated that on 27.11.10 the Complainant had opened a saving bank account and deposited a cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/- for opening the account and he had given consent to abide by the terms and conditions of maintaining the saving account and also agreed to pay necessary service charges and other charges as applicable. As per the terms and conditions of the account the Complainant was to maintain the average quarterly balance of Rs.10,000/- in the account and on default of not keeping the average quarterly balance the account’s of the Complainant was liable to be deducted with the AMB charges. The Complainant got debited a cheque No.484563 dated 14.12.13 and the balance payment remained Rs.9348.45 which left the account less than agreed minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- as specifically agreed by the complainant while opening the account. OP has stated that whenever the Complainant did not maintain the average minimum balance, necessary charges were deducted as per the agreed terms and conditions of the operation of the account. The Complainant had deposited cash on 25.03.13 and the amount again reached beyond average minimum balance. No deductions were made for the month of March-June, 2013. The amount again went below the agreed minimum balance on 19.07.13. Thereafter necessary AMB charges inclusive of ST and Cess for the month of July, 2013 to April, 2014 were deducted as the Complainant did not maintain the average minimum balance as agreed at the time of opening of the account. Finally when the amount was left Rs.1453.41 the account was closed on 30.05.14 and a banker’s cheque for the said amount was handed over to the Complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh. Pradeep Bahl, Branch Manager has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Parties have failed to mark exhibit nos./annexures nos. on the corresponding documents.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had opened a saving bank account with the OP. At the time of opening the account the Complainant had signed the terms and conditions wherein it is specifically mentioned that the average quarterly balance (AQB) required to be maintained for this account is Rs. 10,000/- (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure-A). As the balance of amount was less than Rs.10,000/-, the OP deducted the AMB charges during the above stated periods. Lastly, when the amount was left Rs.1453.41p the Complainant’s account was closed on 30.05.14. The Complainant did not accept the cheque of Rs.1453.41p. During the pendency of the case, on 19.05.15 the counsel for OP has given banker’s cheques for an amount of Rs.1453.41p to the Complainant which has been accepted by him without prejudice to the rights and contention of the parties on merits.
It is evident from the record that by virtue of the terms and conditions which the Complainant had signed himself he had to keep the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- and as and when the amount was less than Rs.10,000/- the OP had to deduct AMB charges from the Complainant’s account. The Complainant’s account was closed when the balance was Rs.1453.41 on 30.05.14. The said amount was paid to the Complainant by the OP during the pendency of the case on 19.05.15. Complainant cannot be allowed to wriggle out from the terms and conditions of the contract. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.8.2016
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Case No. 248/14
19.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(Naina Bakshi) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
