PRESENT: None for Complainant.

           Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP NO.1.

           OP No. 2 Deleted.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, Complainants being husband and wife opened a Joint Account No. 040301500514 with the OP No.1. At the time of opening the said account, they were told to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5,000/-, but subsequently, the OPs changed the ceiling of minimum balance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- and also debited charges from their account for not maintaining that much amount. The Complainants approached OP No.1, but nobody was ready to hear them, due to which they decided to close their aforesaid account by complying with all the required formalities. After closing the account, despite the assurance of OPs to supply the closing statement within two weeks, the Complainants did not receive any closing statement.  It was alleged that one year after closing the account, the Complainants received a bank statement from OP No.2 on 11.4.2009 (Annexure C-1), demanding Rs.2945/- from them, despite the fact that the Complainant had already requested OPs to close the account as early as on 24.05.2008.  On approaching OP No.1, they were told that their account was still in existence, which according to the Complainants, tantamounts to grave deficiency in service and indulgence in unfair trade practice. Hence, through this complaint, the Complainants have prayed for the following reliefs:-

i)  to direct the OPs to withdraw bank statement (Annexure C-1).

ii) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment;

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OP in the written statement/reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that minimum balance of Rs.5000/- was not being maintained by the Complainant and in case, there was any change in the terms & conditions, the same was informed to the customer immediately, which in the present case, has duly been informed to the Complainants. It was submitted that false and frivolous allegations have been leveled by the Complainants. The account was still in operation and no request for the purpose of the closure of the account was ever made to the Bank. It was asserted that without admitting any deficiency in service on its part, OP Bank was ready and willing to waive of all the charges levied in the account subsequent to May, 2008, as a service gesture and also to close the account forthwith, provided the Complainants, complete all the formalities for the closure of the account.

4]      As far as OP No. 2 is concerned, its name was ordered to be deleted from the array of parties, on the basis of a request from the Complainants and as per separate zimni order dated 24.7.2009. 

5]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

6]      Although the Complainant/their proxy counsel persued the present complaint at the initial stages of the case, but subsequently, the Complainants failed to turn up, therefore, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the instant complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date).

7]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint/ written statement and all other relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OP No.1 (OP No.2 being deleted from the array of parties). We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the OP No.1. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainants having opened a Joint Savings Bank Account No. 040301500514 with OP No.1 Bank and that they were required to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- and according to them, they subsequently on 24.05.2008 asked the Bank to close the account. Whereas, instead of closing the account, the OP No. 1 Bank kept the saving bank account alive and fully operative and also claimed a sum of Rs.2945/- from the Complainants as penal charges for not maintaining minimum balance as per Bank Rules, have all been affirmed and reiterated by the Complainants. On the contrary, the case of the OP No. 1 is that even admitting that the requirement of minimum balance in the savings bank account of the Complainants was only Rs.5000/- and not Rs.10,000/-, as wrongly claimed by the Complainants, the Complainants had miserably failed to even maintain the minimum balance of Rs.5000/- in their savings bank account. Secondly, although the Complainants claim to have requested OP No. 1 to close their account on 24.5.2008, there is no document on record or a formal application addressed to OP No. 1 for closure of the account. The only claim of the Complainants is that on 24.5.2008, they had withdrawn a sum of Rs.19/- from their account with OP No. 1, thereby reducing the balance in the account to “ZERO”, which according to the Complainants tantamounts to closure of account. This statement of the Complainants has been challenged by OP No. 1, saying that the mere withdrawl of Rs.19/- and thereby making the balance as “ZERO”, does not mean that the account has been automatically closed. As a matter of fact, as per OP No. 1, the account remained operative even thereafter and since the Complainants did not maintain the requisite minimum balance of Rs.5000/- all this time, the Bank had to impose penalties/ charges on the complaints on account of the lapse on the part of the Complainants by not adhering to the Banking Rule of maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.5,000/-.

ii] In reply/ written statement submitted by OP No.1, without admitting any deficiency of service on its pat and as a gesture of service had offered to the Complainants to waive all charges levied in the account subsequent to May, 2008 i.e. the entire amount of Rs.2945/- and also to close the account forthwith, provided the Complainants complete all necessary formalities for closure of the account. OP No. 1 also made statement in the Forum itself on 4.2.2010, reiterating and affirming the said offer to the Complainants. But this offer of the OP No. 1 has not been accepted by the Complainants during the course of proceedings.

iii] The complaint in question was initially pursued by the Complainants through their Advocate – Sh. Kapil Gupta, at the initial stages. But from September, 2009 onwards, neither the Complainants, nor their authorized agents nor their learned counsel made appearance in the Forum to contest the case. Even, on the date of the final hearing of arguments, the Complainants remained absent and there was no authorized agent or counsel on their behalf. Therefore, it appears that the Complainants themselves were not serious at all in pursuing or contesting their case in the right earnest. Even on merits, the offer made by the OP No. 1 to waive all charges amounting to Rs.2945/- and also to close the account even in the absence of any formal request from the Complainants for closure of the account, is quite fair, just and reasonable. But the same was not accepted by the Complainants, without assigning any reasons. On the other hand, the Complainants have failed to produce any document or any other evidence in support of their case, showing that they had ever made a formal request in writing to OP No. 1 for the closure of the account or that they had ever protested against the alleged increase of the minimum balance required to be maintained in their Savings Bank Account from Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/-. The only point of support claimed by the Complainants is the withdrawal of Rs.19/- from their account on 24.5.2008, thereby making the balance as “ZERO”. This pleading is just not tenable and does not support the case of the Complainants in any way. It is well established that mere withdrawal of any amount from any account does not constitute closure of the account, unless and until a formal request is made to the bank for closure of the account, as also surrendering the unused cheque leaves, the passbook, as well as ATM Card and completing other essential formalities. There is no document on record in the file, which shows that the Complainants have ever returned these documents to the OP Bank and complied with other essential requirements.    

8]      From the above detailed analysis of the case, it is quite clear that the Complainants have not been able to make out any deficiency in service or indulgence in any unfair trade practice on the part of OP No. 1. Therefore, the Complainants do not have any case in their favour and against OP No. 1. The present complaint is baseless, devoid of any merit and deserves rejection.

9]      We therefore, dismiss the complaint. However, the respective parties shall bear their own costs.

10]    Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.