DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

BATHINDA

C.C. No. 110 of 24-01-2014

Decided on : 17-10-2014

Raj Rani Garga w/o Sh. Prem Garga, aged about 64 years, Sole Prop. of M/s. Garga Communications, R/o Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

…...Complainant

Versus

The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bank Bazar, Mall Godam Road, Rampura Phul, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.

.......Opposite party

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member

For the Complainant : Sh. Hitesh Goyal, counsel for the complainant

For the opposite party : Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for the opposite party

O R D E R

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT

1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that she is running the business under the name and style of M/s. Garga Communication, and the said firm is the only source of her livelihood. The complainant alleged that believing the assurance of the opposite party and taking into consideration the recommendation of M/s. Arjun Dass Budh Ram, old client of the opposite party, the complainant agreed upon to open the account and signed all the documents presented by the opposite party for opening of account, without going through the contents of the documents. The opposite party never conveyed any clause regarding the cash depositing charges which is mandatory requirement of contract act in case of 'Standard Forum Contract” i.e. any stipulation which has any adverse effect on any of the party of the contact, is to be specifically brought in the knowledge of that party and it is more significant when the bargaining power of contracting parties are enormously unequal. The complainant further alleged that believing upon the assurance of the opposite party that no cash deposit charges will be imposed, she started her cash transaction. In October, 2012, the complainant noticed an entry of Rs. 9,573.07 which was debited in her account as cash deposit charges for June, 2012. The complainant contacted the Branch Manager of the opposite party and inquired about the same, then he regretted for inconvenience and assured her to reverse the said entry and accordingly, the entry was reversed on 2-11-2012 and the cash deposit charges were again credited in the account of the complainant. The opposite party again debited a sum of Rs. 52,819.58 i.e. 10,382/- on 28-11-2012, 9218.01 ; 6-1-2013, 7,972.19 ; 23-1-2013, 8,876.44 ; 23-5-2013, 7,359.67 ; 23-5-2013, and 9,011.27 on 23-5-2013 to the account of the complainant without any notice. The complainant further alleged that at the time of opening the account the opposite party made a commitment that no cash deposit charges will be levied/imposed, but the opposite party has acted arbitrarily following a rule of pick and choose which is against public policy. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite party to credit the aforesaid amount of Rs. 52,819.58 in her account, but the opposite party kept on putting the matter off on one pretext or the other and ultimately in August, 2013, closed the account of the firm of the complainant without any prior notice or any instruction of the complainant and delivered the cheque for the balance amount lying in the account of the complainant. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 28-11-2013 in this regard, but the opposite party even did not reply to the notice. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs. 52,819.58 and pay her compensation and cost.

2. The opposite party filed his written statement and took legal objection that the account in question is a current account got opened by the complainant for the purpose of business i.e. for commercial purpose, so the present complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the opposite party has pleaded that the complainant has concealed the fact that she was fully aware of charges especially cash deposit charges i.e. charges to be levied on cash deposited beyond Rs. 4,00,000/- or six times the average monthly balance in current month or 25 transactions whichever is breached first (subject to maximum free limit of Rs. 50 lacs per month) and further that deposit in excess free limit will be charged at Rs. 4/- per Rs. 1000/- with minimum of Rs. 50.- per transaction. The complainant had specifically agreed to pay the charges as per schedule from time to time while opening the account and cash deposit charges have been levied strictly as per schedule from time to time as the complainant continued to deposit the cash in excess of these limits. The opposite party has further pleaded that in October, 2012, the complainant represented to the opposite party that she had inadvertently deposited the cash beyond permissible limits and that she will not dispute the cash deposit charges in future in case she deposited cash beyond permissible limit and also agreed to bear cash deposit charges in such a case in future. Only on this representation, the cash deposit charges for June, 2012 for Rs. 9573.07 were waved. The opposite party has denied that the Manager regretted for inconvenience or told the complainant that no other charges would be levied. The opposite party has further pleaded that all the charges regarding the account in question were to the knowledge of the complainant and the same were duly intimated to her from time to time. The said charges are also published on the notice board in the bank from time to time. Even otherwise, the person having regular dealing with the bank on a large scale can easily know the charges at any time.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant has alleged that believing upon the assurance of the opposite party that no cash deposit charges will be imposed, she opened the account with the opposite party and started her cash transactions. In October, 2012, the complainant noticed an entry of Rs. 9,573.07 which was debited in her account as cash deposit charges for June, 2012, but upon inquiry, the entry was reversed on 2-11-2012 and the cash deposit charges were again credited in the account of the complainant. The opposite party again debited a sum of 10,382/- on 28-11-2012, 9218.01 ; 6-1-2013, 7,972.19 ; 23-1-2013, 8,876.44 ; 23-5-2013, 7,359.67 ; 23-5-2013, and 9,011.27 on 23-5-2013 totalling to Rs. 52,819.58 to the account of the complainant without any notice. The submission of the complainant is that at the time of opening the account the opposite party made a commitment that no cash deposit charges will be levied/imposed, but the opposite party has acted arbitrarily following pick and choose method which is against public policy. To prove her this version, the complainant has placed on file account statements of her firm vide which the charges have been imposed, but no evidence to show that pick and chose method has been adopted by the opposite party or the opposite party has acted against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

6. On the other hand, the opposite party has placed on file Account Opening Form Ex. OP-1/3. The last para of this document reads as under :-

   “..I/We confirm that I am/we are in possession of and have read the Terms & conditions Booklet which details the rules governing account operations and the Schedule of Service Charges, which specifies the charges applicable for various services to Ezee Current Account.”

   A perusal of this document reveals that this Form has been duly stamped and signed and the complainant has signed the same in English meaning thereby that the complainant understood and agreed to abide each and every terms and conditions booklet which details the rules governing account operation and schedule of service charges. Ex. OP-1/2 is the Service charges and fees for HDFC Bank Ezee current account. According to this, cash deposit higher of Rs. 4,00 lacs or 6 times the average monthly balance (AMB) maintained in the current month (transaction month) or 25 transactions which ever is breached first (subject to maximum free limit is Rs. 50 lacs per month). Deposit in excess of free limit will be charged @ Rs. 4/- per Rs. 1000/-, minimum Rs. 50/- per transaction. The complainant has not stated that the opposite party has imposed more charges than the aforesaid agreed rate. In such circumstances, it cannot be said the opposite party has adopted pick and choose method or imposed charges other than agreed rate or acted against the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India.

7. The next contention of the complainant is that Rs. 9573.07 were debitted to the account of the complainant being cash deposit charges for June, 2012 which entry was later on reversed on 2-11-2012 and the said cash deposit charges were again credited in the account of the complainant admitting negligence on the part of his official by the opposite party. The pleading of the opposite party in this regard is that the complainant represented to the opposite party that the complainant had inadvertently deposited cash beyond permissible limits and that she will not dispute cash deposit charges in future in case she deposited cash beyond permissible limits and also agreed to bear cash deposit charges in such a case in future. On this representation, the cash deposit charges for June, 2012 for Rs. 9573.07 were waved. Keeping in view the record place on file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant cannot take shelter of reverse entry of aforesaid amount and kept on depositing the amount beyond permissible limits and expect waiving off the deposit charges every time especially when she is aware of the terms and conditions of operating the account in question which she has duly signed.

8. In the case in hand, the onus heavily lies upon the complainant to prove her version. In this regard, we get support from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another, 2001 (1) CLT (SC) wherein it was held:-

   “Deficiency in service-Burden of proof-The burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”

9. The contention of complainant that the opposite party has closed her account in question of his own, is belied by the documents Ex. OP-/4 which is Combined Account Closure Form as this document has been duly stamped and signed by the complainant.

10. The legal objection taken by the opposite party that the current account got opened by the complainant for the purpose of business i.e. for commercial purposes, is not tenable as there is no evidence to show that the complainant has been operating the said account for trading purpose when she has specifically mentioned in para No. 1 of her complaint that the said firm is the only source of her livelihood.

11. With utmost regard and humility to the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the complainant, they are distinguishable on facts.

12. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be consigned to record.

    Pronounced in open Forum

    17-10-2014

    (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

    President

     

     

    (Sukhwinder Kaur)

    Member

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh )

    Member