DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 654
Instituted on: 07.11.2016
Decided on: 05.04.2017
Karnail Singh Prop. Ghuman Cement Store, Gharachon, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
…Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank, Branch Bhawanigarh, through its Branch Manager, Bhawanigarh, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.
..Opposite party
For the complainant : Ms.Rajni Gandhi, Adv.
For Opp. Party : Shri S.S.Punia, Adv.
Quorum: Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
Sarita Garg, Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.
1. Shri Karnail Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant is a consumer of the OP by opening an account number 1957862000038. The grievance of the complainant is that the OP deducted an amount of Rs.1123.60 as AMB Charges, but at the time of opening the account no such terms and conditions were made known to the complainant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that when the complainant objected for wrong AMB charges, then the OP bank reversed the amount on 22.1.12015 and 7.3.2015. Further grievance of the complainant is that the OP deducted an illegal amount of Rs.13,383/- from the account of the complainant, as such the complainant requested the OP for refund of the same, but nothing happened despite serving of legal notice dated 20.7.2016 on the OP. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.13,383/- along with interest apart from compensation and litigation expenses have also been claimed.
2. In reply of the complaint filed by the OP, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant has dragged the OP into unwanted litigation and that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. On merits, it has been admitted that the OP has deducted the amount under AMB charges as mentioned in the complaint and further it is stated that all the deductions have been made as per the terms and conditions settled between the complainant and the OP. It is further stated that at the time of opening of account, the complainant has to maintain minimum balance of Rs.75,000/- in his account, but he failed to do so, as such the amount of Rs.1123/- has been deducted on monthly basis from the account of the complainant being maintainable charges plus tax. Thus, alleging no unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.
3. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of account statement and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of Proforma of customer undertaking for opening Ezee current account, Ex.OP-3 copy of proforma of customer undertaking and closed evidence.
4. We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite party and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part acceptance, for these reasons.
5. In the present complaint case, the complainant has disputed about the deduction of Rs.13,383/- from his account in question as is evident from the copy of statement of account, Ex.C-3 and has further alleged that the same has been illegally deducted on account of AMB charges for the months of March, 2013 to December, 2013, as at the time of opening of the account, no such terms and conditions were ever made known to the complainant nor he agreed about the same. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended vehemently that the same have been legally deducted as agreed between the complainant and the OP. To support his contention, the learned counsel for the OP has relied upon the customer undertaking for opening Ezee current account form and Customer undertaking for opening HDFC Bank Flexi Current Account, Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the learned counsel for the OP as these are the blank performa and the same do not contain the signatures of the complainant and at all not relating to the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the Op that why the Op did not produce on record the copy of account opening form along with its terms and conditions on record, more so when the same were very well and admittedly in the possession of the OP. As such, we are of the considered opinion, that the OP has wilfully and intentionally concealed this material information/document from this Forum, meaning thereby there was no such condition of AMB charges in the account opening form of the complainant as alleged by the OP at the time of opening the above said loan account. In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has illegally deducted AMB Charges from the account of the complainant. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that by doing so, the OP is deficient in rendering service to the complainant apart from unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
6. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to credit the amount of Rs.13,383/- in the account of the complainant deducted on account of AMB Charges. We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony, harassment as well as litigation expenses.
7. This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
April 5, 2017.
(Sukhpal Singh Gill)
President
(Sarita Garg)
Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
