Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the Opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with his grievance that he had opened a current account with Opposite party, as he was doing business, and as initial deposit, issued a cheque for Rs.5,000/- drawn on Canara Bank, Mysore. That on 10.08.2006 the Opposite party issued a letter to him stating that his cheque issued for Rs.5,000/- as initial deposit has been returned unpaid, therefore they were constrained to close his account. That the above letter was a false one and stated that the Opposite party had realised the amount of Rs.5,000/- during July 2006 and got it credited to their account. After receipt of the letter of the Opposite party on 10.08.2006 he never operated his account and that he has not committed any fault. The Opposite party has not refunded his amount of Rs.5,000/- to him, but started the habit of issuing every month summary of accounts even after closing his account by deducting RCA charges of Rs.841/- for each month and as on 30.09.2007 after deducting RCA charges his balance in the account was shown Rs.1,400/-. That he had issued cheques to the different persons and that the Opposite party by closing his account has infringed his right and caused mental agony. The Opposite party in his letter has contended that he after opening the current account has to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- if such being the case, they should not have allowed him to open his account, which is lessor than the minimum maintainable. After allowing him to opening account, the Opposite party should not have taken that plea and thereby attributing deficiency in the service of the Opposite party has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to refund the initial deposit of Rs.5,000/- without deducting RCA charges with interest at 18% p.a. and also to award Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony.<br /> 2. The Opposite party through his advocate has filed version admitting payment of initial deposit of Rs.5,000/- and opening the current account in the name of the complainant. He has further contended that the complainant was required to maintain a quarterly minimum of Rs.10,000/- as average balance in his account. The cheque issued for initial deposit was not honoured by the complainant’s banker twice. The Opposite party further denying the other allegations of the complainant stated that intimation regarding dishonour of cheque was also given to the complainant. After the cheque was honoured, the account of the complainant was kept alive and that complainant was receiving statement of accounts every month. The complainant inspite of receiving such statements regularly at no point of time gave any instructions to them to close the account. Therefore, the complainant since did not maintain the quarterly minimum balance, they imposed RCA charges and deducted during the course of business as required. Thus contending to have not committed any deficiency and the complainant did not exercise his option of getting the account closed, they continued the current account of the complainant till day and justifying the deduction of RCA charges has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Paresh Sahu for Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating their contentions raised in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced a copy of the letter addressed by the Opposite party to him, a copy of the statement of account issued by the Opposite party. The Opposite party has produced an extract of the account of the complainant maintained by him in the Canara Bank to prove the honouring of cheque issued to them towards the initial deposit. Have also produced an extract of the account of the complainant maintained in their branch to prove the deduction of RCA charges. Have also produced copy of the application given by the complainant for opening the roaming current account. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has caused deficiency in deducting RCA charges from his account?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought? <br /> 3. What order?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.3 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 and 2:- The fact that the complainant had opened a current account in the Opposite party branch by issuing a cheque towards the initial deposit of Rs.5,000/- is not in dispute. But, there is some controversy between the complainant and the Opposite party with regard to the effective date from which the current account was opened. According to the complainant, the Opposite party had issued him a letter on 10.08.2006 in which the Opposite party had informed him that the cheque, the complainant had issued towards the initial deposit since was not honoured, they were constrained to close the account on or after 25.08.2006. As against this it is contended by the complainant that despite that letter the Opposite party continued the account and thereafter deducted RCA charges from his account and thereby the Opposite party alleged to have caused deficiency in their service. But, the Opposite party in their version and also in the affidavit evidence have contended that cheque issued by the complainant towards the initial deposit of Rs.5,000/- was returned unrealized on two occasions, therefore at that stage they had addressed a letter dated 10.08.2006 to the complainant informing about the non-realization of the cheque amount and they were constrained to close the account. But, have stated that thereafter when they presented the cheque for encashment on third occasion it came to be honoured and therefore they continued to maintain the account and have further stated that every month they were sending a copy of the statement of account to the complainant. The complainant has not denied the receipt of statement of account of his account from the Opposite party, in which the Opposite party shown to have deducted RCA charges every month. Therefore, the complainant at this stage cannot contend that the Opposite party had closed his current account and therefore, the Opposite party was not justified in deducting RCA charges. The complainant has also not rebutted the evidence of the Opposite party regarding non-collection of the initial deposit amount on two occasions and it came to be realised when it was sent for collection on third occasion, therefore it appears that has caused some delay in opening the current account and that prompted the Opposite party to issue letter dated 10.08.2006 to the complainant. However, it is not the grievance of the complainant that Opposite party has caused deficiency in opening the account.<br /> 7. It is the grievance of the complainant that the Opposite party is wrong in deducting RCA charges. As already stated by us he is not disputing the receipt of statement of accounts sent by the Opposite party every month regularly. Thus, it is evident that the complainant who received statement of account from the Opposite party every month regularly and even after noticing deduction of RCA charges from his account, he did not raise his little finger against it and against the Opposite party. At that stage he could have exercised his option either to continue the account or to close the account, if he had really exercised option of closing the account with the Opposite party, he could have done so and that would have prevented the Opposite party from deducting further the RCA charges from his initial deposit. The Opposite party has contended that the complainant who had opened roaming current account was required to maintain a quarterly minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in his account. In support of his contention, he invited our attention to the contents of the application given by the complainant, in which it has been categorically stated that the complainant was required to maintain quarterly average balance of Rs.10,000/- below this statement, the complainant has signed and also affixed his business seal. Therefore it is not that the complainant was not aware of this requirement. He was categorically made known of this minimum requirement. Further it is not his contention that he after opening the current account at any time had deposited any money leave alone the maintaining of quarterly balance of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, when the complainant never maintained that minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in his account that prompted the Opposite party to levy RCA charges and thereby they deducted that amount from the initial deposit deposited by the complainant. If the complainant had aggrieved of such deduction, when he received the statement of account every month he could have requested the Opposite party to close the account and to refund the balance deposit amount. But the complainant having not exercised such an option and allowed the continuation of the account he cannot overcome the liability of paying RCA charges as agreed upon. Therefore, under these circumstances, we find no merits in the complainant. As such, the complainant in our view has failed to prove the deficiency and thereby he is not entitled to the relief sought for. However, it is made clear the complainant if wishes so he may choose to close his current account with the Opposite party. With this observations, we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />