| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/15/219 of 1.10.2015 Decided on: 19.7.2016 Aman Kumar son of Faqir Chand r/o 202 Street No.2, Guru Nanak Street, Near Charanjiv Ashram, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - HDFC Bank, through its Managing Director Office HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
- HDFC Bank, through it’s Branch Manager Leela Bhawan Branch, Patiala-147001.
…………….Ops Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh. A.P.S.Rajput, President Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh.Gurmit Singh , Advocate For Ops: Sh.Sanjay Khanna,Advocate ORDER NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - The complainant got a job in the firm ‘Manpower Service India Ltd.’ on 1.4.2010 and the firm opened a zero balance salary a/c no.01161050242944 in the name of the complainant, Aman Kumar with the HDFC Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala on 19.5.2010. It is averred that in the month of June,2014, Ops No.1&2deducted Rs.393-26 without any itimation and the complainant approached Op no.2 regarding the said deduction of Rs.393.26 but the bank officials failed to give any reply. Again in the month of July,2014, a deduction of Rs.1.78p was made by the bank and the complainant again approached Op no.2 but again officials of the bank did not give any reply. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the Bank Manager of Op no.2, who told the complainant that the said deductions were made due to less balance than the minimum to be maintained i.e. Rs.5000/- and from there the complainant came to know that the status of the complainant’s salary account has been changed to ordinary saving account in which there is the policy of the bank that the account holder should maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5000/-.It is further averred that the company in which the complainant was employed opened a zero balance salary account in the name of the complainant but the said deductions were made without any prior intimation to the complainant.
- It is further alleged that the complainant requested the branch manager of Op no.2 that if the deducted amount is reimbursed, then the complainant will maintain the minimum balance of Rs.5000/- and the officials of Op no.2 agreed that the said deducted amount will be reimbursed within a few days. But in the month September,2014, again a sum of Rs.391.50 , Rs.393.26 and Rs.1.39 were deducted from the account of the complainant. When the complainant approached officials of Op no.2 regarding the said deductions, Op’s failed to pay any heed to the request of the complainant.
- On 8.9.2015, the complainant got served legal notice upon the Ops but to no effect. The complainant underwent a lot of harassment and mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Ultimately he approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) .
- On notice, Ops appeared through counsel and filed their reply to the complaint. It is an admitted fact that the firm namely ‘Manpower Service India Ltd.,’ opened an account in the name of the complainant of ‘zero balance’ , and it was specifically told to the complainant that this ‘zero balance’ account will operate till he remained in the service of the company and it was also told to the complainant that in case the service account is converted into saving account, the complainant will be liable to keep minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- , failing which the amount will be deducted for non-maintenance of the account. After acceptance of the said conditions by the complainant, the account of the complainant was opened. It is further submitted by the Ops that due intimation was given to the complainant through SMS as well as through e-mails that since the salary of the complainant was not being credited in his account, therefore, the said account has been converted into saving bank account in which the complainant is bound to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/-.Therefore, it is wrong that the Ops wrongly deducted the amount of Rs.393.50 for the month of September,2014, Rs.393.26 and Rs.1.39 and as such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of Ops. After denying all other allegations levelled in the complaint, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith documents, Exs.C1 to C4 and his counsel closed the evidence.
- Whereas the counsel for the Ops tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Operation Manager of HDFC Bank alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- The complainant filed written arguments. We have through the same, heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence on record.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the statement of account of the complainant whereby the Ops made certain deductions from the account of the complainant and the same also depicts the status of the account as ‘regular’. Whereas Ex.OP1 is the copy of the statement of account of the complainant which shows that all the deductions made from the account of the complainant have been credited into his account and the closing balance is shown as zero. As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Ops.
- During the course of arguments, it was observed that the complainant failed to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- in his account even after coming to know that his ‘salary account’ had been converted into ‘Regular Account’ wherein it is necessary to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- whereas Ops have credited all the deductions made from the account of the complainant in his account as per the account statement i.e. Ex.OP1 . As such no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Ops.
- An upshot of the aforesaid discussions, it is observed that the complaint is without any merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
Pronounced Dated: 19.7.2016 Neelam Gupta A.P.S.Rajput Member President | |
