DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 206 of 20-07-2007<br /> Decided on :31-10-2007 <br /> <br /> Lakshmi Narain Goel Advocate S/o L. Goria Mal, 3042, Power House Road, Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> H.D.F.C. Bank , Guru Kanshi Marg, Bathinda, through its Manager or Head.<br /> <br /> ... Opposite party<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh. Hira Lal Kumar, Member <br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. O.P Mehta, Advocate<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg,Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT <br /> 1. This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite party to pay him amount of Rs. 5,000/- alongwith interest @ 10.25% P.A. from the date of deposit without any deduction; Rs. 500/- as annual charges regarding the Account and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and deliver him Pass Book regarding her entire Account from the beginning till date.<br /> 2. Version of the complainant as emanates from the complaint itself may be stated as under :-<br /> 3. Complainant has his Account No. 1871 000074501 with the opposite party at Bathinda. He and his wife have G.O.I. Saving (Taxable Bonds) of the amount of Rs. 3.50 Lacs. Interest on them is payable @ 8% P.A. and their date of maturity is 31.1.2010. He has his Demat Account No. 43039725 D.P.I.D. 300476 and D.P.I.D. IN 301549 with the opposite party. This was opened by the opposite party on charges of Rs. 500/- P.A. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited. This Account enables him to purchase and sell shares. Without Demat Account, shares cannot be purchased and sold. He wanted to purchase shares of Indian Bank as well as Power Finance. Enquiry was made by him from the opposite party and it transpired that Demat Account has been closed without any notice to him. Opposite party apprised him that needed amount of Rs. 5,000/- was missing. Opposite party did not pay any heed to the ground that their amount of Rs. 3.50 Lacs was lying with it alongwith interest. An amount of Rs. 37,000/- was withdrawn by him as interest. Opposite party should not have allowed him to withdraw this amount informing him that the same would result in closing the Demat Account. Had this fact been brought to his notice, withdrawl of the amount could be avoided by him. Opposite party did not issue him Pass Book despite request. Request was made by him to regularise the Demat Account as he wanted to purchase the shares. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by him on 19.1.07. He was assured that Account would be regularised, but to no effect. He could not purchase shares of Indian Bank as well as of Power Finance due to the fact that Demat Account was not regularised. His wife had purchased 80 shares @ Rs. 85/-per share of Power Finance and 133 Shares of Indian Bank @ Rs. 91/- per share. The market value of these shares at present is Rs. 150/- and 121/- respectively. In this manner, she earned profit to the tune of about Rs. 9,000/-. He has undergone monetary loss. He came to know that a sum of Rs. 750/- has been debited in his Account again reducing the amount of Rs. 5,000/- i.e. minimum balance needed for regularising the Demat Account.<br /> 4. Opposite party filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present from; it (opposite party) has acted as per terms and conditions agreed upon between it and the complainant; complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it admits that complainant has Saving Account No. 1871 000074501 with it. It was opened by giving address of 50 Harsh Vihar, Pitampura, Delhi. He got this address changed on 1.6.07. It does not deny that complainant and his wife have purchased Government of India Saving (Taxable Bonds) worth Rs. 3.50 Lacs and their date of maturity is 30-01-2010. That has no relevancy with the facts of the present case. Complainant had got opened Demat Account No. 43039725 on 22.6.07 with it. A sum of Rs. 500/- P.A. is charged as annual maintenance charges for this Demat Account with service tax and cess in addition to it. Amount of Rs. 5,000/- was not deposited in Demat Account. The amount, if any, is deposited in Saving Account and charges of maintaining Demat Account are charged in the Saving Account annually. In this case as well, annual maintenance charges for Demat Account were being charged from Saving Account. Complainant had agreed that these charges may be debited to his Saving Account No. 1871 000074501. He was having another Demat Account No. 19453699 alongwith second holder Mrs. Rukmani Goel his wife. Annual maintenance charges of this Demat Account were also debited from the Saving Account of the complainant and that this Demat Account was also closed on 21-12-2006 due to overdraft in Saving Account against which annual maintenance charges were to be debited. Complainant has not mentioned anything about Demat Account No. 19453699. He cannot take benefit of his own wrong. Demat Accounts were closed when there is overdraft on Account of charging/debiting the annual maintenance charges in Saving Account. Minimum average quarterly balance of Rs. 5,000/- has to be maintained in Saving Account but his Saving Account was running in negative balance. Deposit of Rs. 3.50 Lacs in Government of India Bonds has no effect on the facts of this case. Withdrawl of Rs. 37,000/- is a matter of record. Complainant is to maintain the minimum average quarterly balance in the Saving Account to avoid levy of charges on Account of non-maintenance of average quarterly balance in Saving Account and also to allow charging the annual maintenance charges of Demat Account against the Saving Account. Complainant was fully aware that average quarterly balance of Rs. 5,000/- has to be maintained in the Saving Account and that annual charges of Demat Account are to be debited in his Saving Account. It denies that complainant is/was unable to know his Account due to non issue of Pass Book. Quarterly statement of Account is sent to the Account holder. Complainant has himself placed on file the copy of the latest statement of Account for the period from 10-03-2007 to 09-06-2007. He can approach it to know the latest balance/position of his Account. It denies that complainant wanted to regularise his closed Demat Account. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited vide cheque No. 0974036 in Saving bank Account No. 1871 00074501. It was deposited only when he came to know that he has failed to maintain average quarterly balance even in his Saving Account and a sum of Rs. 750/- alongwith service tax and education cess have been debited to his Saving Account as per terms and conditions agreed upon. These charges for non-maintenance of average quarterly balance were reversed when he deposited Rs. 5,000/- in his Saving Account and agreed to follow the terms and conditions in future. It further denies that it had promised to regularise the closed Demat Account within a week. Demat Account once closed cannot be re-opened and only a new Account can be opened. Knowing fully well, complainant got opened Demat Account No. 22222252 on 25.6.07. It does not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 5. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1) photocopy of Account statement (Ex. C-2), photocopy of application dated 20.6.07 (Ex. C-3) and photocopy of bank receipt (Ex. C-4).<br /> 6. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite party copy of statement of Account (Ex. R-1), photocopy of application Form (Ex. R-2), photocopy of letter dated 21.8.07 (Ex. R-3), photocopy of Client Master Query (Ex. R-4), photocopies of Client Master list (Ex. R-5 to Ex. R-7), affidavit of Sh. Ashu Garg, Branch Manager (Ex. R-8), copy of the statement of Account (Ex. R-9), photocopy of application for opening of Account (Ex. R-10) and photocopy of Account opening form (Ex. R-11) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Besides this, we have gone through the record and written brief of arguments submitted on behalf of the opposite party.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that Demat Account No. 43039725 was opened by the opposite party against charges of Rs. 500/- P.A. and on deposit of Rs. 5,000/- Saving Account was also opened. Demat Account. Demat Account was illegally closed. Complainant had withdrawn Rs. 37,000/- as interest. In case minimum balance of Rs. 5,000/- in Saving Account was decreasing, opposite party would not have allowed him to withdraw this amount. No Pass Book has been issued to the complainant. Complainant had deposited Rs. 5,000/- on 19.1.07 for regularisation of Demat Account. Complainant had moved an application, copy of which is Ex. C-3 and on its basis, opposite party had promised to regularise his Demat Account within 2-3 days as is evident from Ex. C-4. Despite this, Account has not been regularised. Complainant became unable to purchase shares of Indian Bank as well as of Power Finance due to which he has undergone financial loss as his wife had purchase shares, the market value of which had gone up to the extent of Rs. 9,000/-. Opposite party has wrongly debited the amount of Rs. 750/- from his Saving Account. He further submitted that complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 5,000/- without any deduction besides compensation and Rs. 500/- as annual charges on the Account.<br /> 9. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for the opposite party countered the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant by submitting that complainant has wrongly stated in his affidavit that Saving Account was opened only for the purpose of Demat Account. Demat Account was opened on charges of Rs. 500/- P.A. plus service tax and education cess thereof. Complainant had Demat Account No. 19453699 in his name as well as in the name of his wife Smt. Rukmani Goel. Since charges for this Account were also debited in Saving Account, this Account was also closed and that complainant has not challenged the closure of this Demat Account No. 19453699. Demat Account once closed cannot be reopened. Complainant had applied for another new Demat Account opened in his name as is evident from Ex. R-10 and after formalities were completed, it has been opened on 25.6.07. Complainant did not deposit any amount in Demat Account No. 43039725. Amount, if any, is deposited only in Saving Account. Amount of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited in Saving Account on 10.01.07. Complainant was liable to pay Rs. 500/- towards annual charges of Demat Account plus services tax and education cess. Account statement of the Saving bank Account No. 1871 000074501 is on the record. Copy of the statement was being supplied to the complainant after every quarter and as such, the question of issuing the Pass Book to him, does not arise. He further argued that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.<br /> 10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments.<br /> 11. It is not out of place to mention here that complainant has his Saving Account No. 1871 000074501 with the opposite party. As is evident from the copy of the statement of Account Ex. R-9 of this Account, it was opened on 9.12.03. Demat Account No. 43039725 was opened on 22.6.2004. Complainant had another joint Demat Account No. 19453699 with his wife Mrs. Rukmani Goel as is clear from Ex. R-7. Account No. 43039725 was closed on 4.12.06 and Account No. 19453699 was closed on 21.12.06 as emanates from Ex. R-5 & Ex. R-7 respectively.<br /> 12. Record does show that Saving Account no. 1871 000074501 and Demat Account No. 43039725 were simultaneously opened. Stance of the complainant that Saving Account was opened only for the purpose of Demat Account is not acceptable. From Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-9 which are the statements of Saving Account No. 1871 000074501 it reveals that there are large number of transactions other than Demat transactions. Further more Saving Account was opened on 9.12.03 whereas Demat Account was opened on 22.6.04. Ex. R -9 shows that earlier also Saving Account was debited for service charges of Demat Account prior to 30.1.06. Plea of the complainant in his affidavit Ex. C-1 that opposite party had no right to charge the amount from his Saving Account to operate Demat Account of Rukmani Goel cannot be accepted as Demat Account No. 19453699 was in the joint names of complainant and his wife Mrs. Rukmani Goel and complainant had authorised the opposite party through authorisation letter, copy of which is Ex. R-13 to debit all types of Bank charges/commission/fees from his Saving Account No. 1871 000074501.<br /> 13. Complainant has himself placed on record copy of the statement of Account Ex. C-2. A perusal of this document reveals that minimum average quarterly balance in Saving Account was to be maintained to the extent of Rs. 5,000/-. Non-maintenance of minimum average quarterly balance was to attract charges of Rs. 750/- per quarter. Annual charges for maintenance of Demat Account are Rs. 500/- plus service tax and education cess. No amount is deposited in Demat Account. Even the amount chargeable for Demat Account is debited from the Saving Account. In fact Demat Account is only for the trading of shares. Minimum balance in the Saving Account of the complainant became negative i.e. minus Rs. 306.24 on 25.9.06. A sum of Rs. 750/- was charged on 6.1.07 from the Saving Account for not maintaining average quarterly balance. Rs. 90/- and Rs. 1.80 were charged on that day as service tax and education cess respectively. Complainant has failed to establish that amount of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited in Demat Account for regularisation of Demat Account No. 43039725 which was closed on 1.12.06. His other Demat Account which he was holding jointly with his wife was also closed on 21.12.06. He has not assailed the closure of that Account for the reasons best known to him. A sum of Rs. 5,000/- was deposited by the complainant on 10.1.07 in his Saving Account as per statement of Account, copy of which is Ex. R-1. The opposite party was good enough to reverse the debit entries of Rs. 750/-, Rs.90/- and Rs. 1.80 made on 10.1.07 in the Saving Account after depositing of this amount of Rs. 5,000/- by him which was the minimum quarterly balance for maintaining the Saving Account. Complainant himself admits that Demat Account was opened against charges of Rs. 500/- as annual charges for this Account. He was liable to pay this amount and that too from his Saving Account. So far as the regularisation of Account No. 43039725 is concerned, it was closed on 1.12.06. Once such Demat Account is closed, it cannot be re-opened/regularised and only a new Account can be opened. On 10.1.07, complainant deposited Rs. 5,000/-. On 9.2.07, application was moved by him for opening new Demat Account as is clear from Ex. R-10. After processing the case, opposite party opened Demat Account No. 22222252 for which charges are to be levied from his Saving Account No. 1871 000074501. Stance of the complainant that on the basis of his application, copy of which is Ex. C-3, opposite party had agreed to regularise his Demat Account No. 43039725 through undertaking, copy of which is Ex. C-4, does not appeal to reason. Ex. C-4 is dated 20.6.07. Prior to it i.e. on 9.2.07, complainant had applied for new Demat Account. In this scenario, it is difficult to hold that undertaking was given by the opposite party to regularise the previous Demat Account No. 43039725 particularly when such like Account which is once closed cannot be re-opened. This undertaking appears to be for the new Demat Account which was subsequently opened on 25.6.07 as Demat Account No. 22222252. No doubt in para No. 7 of the complaint, complainant has pleaded about the regularisation of his closed Demat Account, but in the prayer clause no relief has been sought by him for this purpose. Complainant is craving for return of Rs. 5,000/- without any deduction. It is worth mentioning that Rs. 5,000/- were deposited by him in his Saving Account which has not so far been closed by him. He may withdraw the outstanding amount from his Saving Account, if so advised and permitted by law. Sh. Ashu Garg , Branch Manager of the opposite party in his affidavit Ex. R-8 has stated that quarterly statement of Account was sent to the Account holders including complainant. Complainant has himself placed on file copy of the latest statement of Account for the period from 10.3.07 to 9.6.07, which is Ex. C-2. Apart from this, opposite party has placed and proved on record copies of statements of Saving Account of the complainant from its inception till 1.8.07 which are Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-9. Learned counsel for the opposite party stated at Bar that Pass Book is not issued by the opposite party to any Account holder and that only quarterly statement of Accounts is provided to the Account holders and in this case quarterly statements have been provided to the complainant. We fail to understand as to for what purpose complainant needs Pass Book particularly when he has pleaded in the complaint that he does not want further dealings with the opposite party and Account statements of his Account are already on the record.<br /> 14. In the facts and circumstances discussed above, Demat Account No. 43039725 of the complainant cannot be said to have been illegally closed by the opposite party. Even if it is taken for arguments sake although we do not subscribe to it that complainant was intending to purchase the shares of Indian Bank and Power Finance, even then he cannot be said to have suffered any financial loss. The amount in the Saving Account is of the complainant. It is not a case where he was not aware that for maintaining the Saving Account, average quarterly balance of Rs. 5,000/- was to be maintained and for not maintaining it, he was liable for penalty. When he was aware of this fact, he should have left the minimum balance in his Saving Account before withdrawing Rs. 37,000/-. For this, he cannot blame the opposite party. There is no authority from the complainant to the effect that for maintaining average quarterly balance of Saving Account, opposite party can charge from his Government of India Saving Taxable Bonds. It is a separate Account of the complainant jointly with his wife.<br /> 15. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. When it is so, the question of his entitlement to compensation for physical and mental harassment, does not arise. Complaint being devoid of merits, is dismissed. Parties are left to their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned and file be consigned to record room. <br /> Pronounced :<br /> 31-10--2007 <br /> (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> ( Dr. Phulinder Preet) (Hira Lal Kumar )<br /> Member Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />