DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. No. 307 of 2.11.2007<br /> Decided on : 29.1.2008<br /> <br /> Nachattar Singh S/o Sh. Buta Singh, R/o H. No. 278, Phase-I, Bathinda. <br /> ...... Complainant<br /> <br /> Versus. <br /> <br /> 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., Bibiwala Road, Bathinda through its Manager.<br /> 2. Chief Manager, Landmark Race Course Circle, ICICI Bank Ltd., Vadodara- 390007 (India).<br /> 3. Regional Manager, ICICI Bank, SAS Nagar, Mohali.<br /> ...... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Sh.Hira Lal Kumar, Member<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. J.S Walia, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant and his daughter Ms. Paramjit Kaur were holding joint A/c No. 016301001344 with opposite party No. 1 for the period from 1.10.2004. In the month of February, 2005, his daughter had gone to Canada on study basis. Thereafter, he did not operate the account. On 31.12.2004, there was a credit balance of Rs. 2,207.50. Thereafter, he did not make any transaction. In the month of October, 2006, a letter was received by him from the opposite parties vide which they debited an amount of Rs. 3,765.50 in his account and demanded this amount from him despite the fact that no transaction was made by him nor a single penny was withdrawn after 31.12.2004. Rules and regulations were not explained to him at the time of opening the account. Letter dated 11.12.2006 was issued by him to the opposite parties to close the account. Further request was made by him to pay the amount which was lying credited in it alongwith upto date interest. His request was not acceded to. To the contrary, opposite parties continued debiting the amount in his account of their own and ultimately issued letter to him in the month of October, 2007 showing debit balance of Rs. 8,556.50 as on 30.9.2007 and requested him to deposit it. Opposite parties were requested to refund the amount of Rs. 2,207.50 alongwith interest w.e.f. 1.1.2005 till payment, but to no effect. In these circumstances, instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2,207.50 alongwith interest thereon w.e.f. 1.1.2005 till payment; quash the demand of Rs. 8,556.50 raised by the opposite parties by debiting it in his account; pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental tension, botheration and harassment and Rs. 3,300/-as costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. On being put to notice, opposite parties filed their version taking preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainant has no cause of action; he has not approached this Forum with clean hands; he is not consumer; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint and complaint is false and frivolous. Inter-alia, their plea is that complainant has not maintained Quarterly Average Balance (QAB) as per requirement and as such, he was charged Rs. 750/- per QAB plus service charges. Amount has been debited in his account. They are legally entitled to recover this amount as per terms and conditions of ICICI Bank as mentioned in the Account Opening Form in column charges for non-maintenance of Quarterly Average Balance “Service charges (when the QAB falls below the level stipulated for the customer ) * Rs. 750/- per calendar quarter plus transaction charges for all customers except Senior Citizens, Bank@campus and young star customers” shall be charged. Complainant was not maintaining Quarterly Average Balance of Rs. 5,000/- in the account. Statement of account has already been sent to the complainant. They deny deficiency in service on their part and the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his allegations and averments in the complaint, Nachattar Singh complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit (Ex.C.1), photocopies of statements of account (Ex.C.2 & EX.C.3 to Ex.C.6), photocopy of letter dated 11.12.2006 (Ex.C.7), photocopies of postal receipts (Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.10) and photocopy of his Ex-servicemen Identity Card (Ex.C.11).<br /> 4. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Amit Ahuja, photocopies of account statements (Ex.R.2 to Ex.R.7) and specimen copy of applicable form (Ex.R.8).<br /> 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Apart from this, we have considered the written arguments submitted by the parties.<br /> 6. Some facts do not remain in dispute in this case. They are that complainant and his daughter Ms. Paramjit Kaur were holding joint account with opposite party no. 1 w.e.f. 1.10.2004. Letter, copy of which is Ex.C.5, was received by the complainant in October, 2006 according to which opposite parties have debited an amount of Rs. 3,765.50 in their account. This amount was demanded from them. In October, 2007, letter, copy of which is Ex.C.6, was issued showing a debit balance of Rs.8,556.50 as on 30.9.2007. <br /> 7. Arguments pressed into service by the learned counsel for the complainant are that complainant and her daughter were not explained the rules and regulations for operating the account at the time when account was opened. On31.12.2004, there was a credit balance of Rs. 2,207.50. Opposite parties have wrongly debited an amount of Rs. 3,765.50. Letter dated 11.12.2006 was written by the complainant for closing the joint account and making further request to pay the balance amount lying credited in the account. Neither the account was closed nor any reply was sent. To the contrary, in October, 2007, again letter was issued showing debit balance of Rs. 8,556.50 as on 30.9.2007. Complainant also falls under the category of Senior Citizen.<br /> 8. Mr. Nayyar, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that copy of the application form for opening the account is Ex.R.8. A perusal of this document reveals that opposite party-bank is entitled to charge service charges when the Quarterly Average Balance falls below the prescribed limit. In such a case, Quarterly Average Balance was to be maintained as Rs. 5,000/-. Complainant and his daughter did not maintain it. Accordingly, amount has been debited i.e. Rs. 750/- per calendar quarter plus transaction charges. Complainant did not seek the benefit that he is senior citizen. Opposite parties are legally entitled to recover the amount from the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the ICICI Bank.<br /> 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments. Onus to prove the version in the complaint is upon the complainant. He is to stand on his own legs. Affidavit Ex.C.1 of the complainant that rules and regulations/terms for operating the account were not explained to him stands amply rebutted with the affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. Amit Ahuja, who has stated that complainant has not maintained Quarterly Average Balance as agreed by him. He further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the ICICI Bank as mentioned in the Account Opening Form in column charges for non-maintenance of Quarterly Average Balance “Service charges (when the QAB falls below the level stipulated for the customer) * Rs. 750/- per calendar quarters plus transaction charges for all customers except Senior Citizens, Bank@campus and Young star customers”, shall be charged. It is not an individual account of the complainant. Admittedly, he has joint account with his daughter Ms. Paramjit Kaur. Firstly, he did not seek relief from the opposite parties on the ground that he is a Senior Citizen. Moreover, as argued by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, he cannot seek the remedy on this ground as in the case in hand account is not an individual one. It is a joint account. Complainant did not muster courage to get the Account Opening Form produced from the opposite parties to show that terms and conditions regarding maintenance of minimum quarterly average balance of Rs. 5,000/- were not known to him and his daughter and that they had not agreed. To the contrary, opposite parties have placed on record format of the application form for opening the account in which it has been made clear that customer is required to maintain minimum quarterly average balance of Rs. 5,000/- and charges for non-maintenance of quarterly average balance are Rs. 750/- per calendar quarter plus transaction charges for all customers except senior citizens. In these circumstances, when complainant has not got produced the account opening form, his affidavit stands amply bracketed with the affidavit Ex.R.1 and Ex. R.8 establishes that account holder is required to maintain minimum quarterly average balance of Rs. 5,000/- and in case, he /she does not maintain it, he/she is liable to pay the charges for non-maintenance of QAB, it does not lie in the mouth of the complainant that he is not liable to pay the charges towards non-maintenance of quarterly average balance.<br /> 10. True that on 31.12.2004, there was a credit balance of Rs. 2,207.50 in the account of the complainant and his daughter as is evident from Ex.R.3. Stance of the complainant that after 31.12.2004, he did not make any transaction nor did he operate the account, is not tenable in view of the copy of statement of account Ex.R.3 which reveals transactions even during the period from 1.1.2005 to 30.6.2005. As discussed above, complainant and his daughter were required to maintain minimum quarterly average balance. Since, they did not maintain it, opposite parties were well within their right to debit the amount. Upto 29.9.2006, there was a debit balance of Rs. 3,765.50 for which letter was sent to the complainant admittedly in October, 2006. Now question arises as to whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Opposite parties are debiting the amount in the account of the complainant and his daughter. Letter was issued in October, 2007 showing debit balance of Rs. 8,556.50. They are debiting balance in the account on account of non-maintenance of minimum quarterly average balance. As the statement of account for the period from 1.12.2007 to 19.1.2008, copy of which is Ex.R.7, debit balance is Rs. 10,754.50. Complainant issued registered letter to the opposite parties on 11.12.2006 and copy of which is Ex.C.7 making request that the account be closed immediately. Copies of the postal receipts are Ex.C.8 to Ex.C.10. Despite this, opposite parties did not close the account and are continuing debiting amount on account of non-maintenance of quarterly average balance. When complainant had made the request for closing the account, opposite parties were required to close it by way of processing the case. Reasonable time for processing the case for closing the account could at the most be upto 31.12.2006. Hence, they could charge the amount for non-maintenance of minimum average quarterly balance upto 31.12.2006 and not beyond it. Since, opposite parties are still debiting the amount towards charges for non-maintenance of minimum quarterly average balance after 31.12.2006, there is deficiency in service on their part. <br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainant. Complainant seeks direction to the opposite parties to pay him Rs. 2,207.50 alongwith interest which was the credit balance in the account on 31.12.2004.<br /> In our view, complainant is not entitled to this amount alongwith interest as he and his daughter neither maintained minimum quarterly average balance of Rs. 5,000/- nor did they move application to the opposite parties for closing the joint account till 11.12.2006. Complainant is also seeking the relief of quashing demand of Rs. 8,556.50 raised by the opposite parties by debiting the account. As discussed above, complainant and his daughter become liable for charges for not maintaining minimum average quarterly balance till 31.12.2006. Upto 31.12.2006, the debit balance was Rs. 4,849.50. Beyond that the demand of the opposite parties is illegal and is liable to be set-aside as complainant and his daughter are not liable to pay it. Complainant is also craving for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of financial loss, agony, botheration and harassment. There is no case to allow it in view of the discussion which has been made above.<br /> 12. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 13. In the result, complaint is allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 1,000/- as they continued charging the complainant and his daughter for non-maintenance of the minimum quarterly average balance even after 31.12.2006. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :-<br /> ( i ) Not to demand charges etc. for non-maintenance of minimum quarterly average balance beyond 31.12.2006. In other words, not to raise demand beyond Rs. 4,849.50.<br /> ( ii ) Compliance within 30 days after receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 14. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also<br /> <br /> consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 29.01.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Hira Lal Kumar)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member<br /> 'bsg'<br /> <br />