DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.674/2012

Sh. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal

S/o Lt. Sh. Moti Lal,

R/o 421, PKT-E, Mayur Vihar Phase-II,

New Delhi - 110091

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

ICICI Bank, Branch Manager,

D-16, South Extension, Part-II,

New Delhi - 110024

        ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         17.12.2012

       Date of Order            :         14.03.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The Complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP i.e. ICICI Bank praying for refund of some of Rs.5729.18/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Direction is also sought for the OP to pay a sum of
Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, agony and Rs.40,000/- as cost of litigation.

It is the case of the complainant that he opened his account along with his family members in the OP bank in their South Extension branch due to certain promises that were made to the complainant. It is stated by the complainant that on one occasion, he had issued a cheque from account number 039601001539 in the name of Sh. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal, to be transferred into his account within the branch and he had also made it clear to the relationship manager that the money must be transferred at the earliest as he has already issued counter cheque and does not wish the other cheque issued from his account to get dishonoured but on account of the negligence of the bank the cheque from Vikram Nilesh Goyal’s account went to clearing and the money was not transferred to his account. It is further stated that to avoid the dishonoring of the cheque issued by the complainant he gave a new cheque from the account of Vikrant Nilesh Goyal so that the money could be instantly transferred to his account and it was also told by the relationship manager that no dishonour charges will be charged from Vikrant Nilesh Goyal’s account as it was the fault of the bank employees. Eventually, the first cheque was dishonoured due to which dishonoured charges were deducted from the Vikrant Nilesh Goyal’s words account which was solely due to the mistake of the relationship manager and though it was promised that the charges will be reversed, it was not done.

Further, it is averred by the complainant that a list of charges were wrongly levied on him as family QAB charges and which totals to Rs. 3994.96/- from 21.06.2010 till 09.05.2012 pertaining to account number 039601001540 in the name of Sh. Jaswant Rai Aggarwal. Similar charges have been levied in account number 039601 001541 in the name of Smt. Anita Goyal from 10.05.2010 till 29.12.2011 which comes to Rs.379.30/-. Similar charges were levied in account number 039601001539 in the name of Sh. Vikrant Nilesh Goyal from the date 15.04.2010 till 10.09.2011 for a total of Rs.1008.64/- and for account number 039601 001537 in the name of Sh. Vivek Nilesh Goyal from date 05.05.2010 till 29.12.2011 for a total of Rs.346.28/-. The total amount as wrongly levied is 5729.18/- which the complainant is claiming from the OP. It is the case of the complainant that these accounts were opened with the promise of being a group account and other charges have been levied for no justifiable reason and that they were not given any facility of a privilege account holder. It is also stated that the OP have deliberately grouped the account since the balance was not available in other accounts and deducted charges for all the accounts from one account.

On the other hand, the OP has stated that the complainant has filed the present complaint with the nefarious intention to extract compensation from the OP without being deficient in their service. It is also stated that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the present complaint and therefore it is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the OP did not paint any rosy picture about their banking services and it was in fact the complainant who approached the OP with the request to open his and his family members saving accounts and after verification of their credentials the accounts were opened. It is also stated that due information was given to the complainant and his family members that service charges would be levied and after the complainant and his family members agreed to the same, they signed the form.

 It is further stated that the charges for various activities of the OP are equivalent for all the persons / customers. It is stated that the charges which were levied were service charges as per the bank policy of which prior due information/ intimation was provided to the complainant as in and his family members at the time of opening of their Savings Bank account. It is further stated that the cheque that the complainant is referring to, was dropped in the drop box and was sent for clearing in the normal course and for this reason, fund could not be transferred as is done in cases where the cheque of the same bank is issued and deposited in the same bank. OP has further denied that there was any kind of mistake on the part of the relationship manager or that the officials of the OP had ever told the complainant that the charges will be reversed and that the this averment of the complainant is baseless and without any substance. It is reiterated by the op that they can legitimately charge for services like RTGS, RTN and maintenance and therefore cannot be held liable for deficiency in service. The OP denies receiving any notice from the side of the complainant.

Both the parties have filed the respective evidences as well as written arguments. Complainant has also filed his rejoinder. We have heard the oral arguments of both the counsels.

The Complainant, in his rejoinder has mostly denied the averments of the OP and reiterated that the accounts were to be treated as group accounts, however he has not filed any document to substantiate his contention that has been raised by him in his complaint apart from statement of account which shows QAB charges being levied.

After carefully going through the material on record, this Commission is of the view that the complainant has not been able to prove deficiency of service against the OP since the allegations of the complainant are unsubstantiated and are merely averments. As far as the QAB charges are concerned, the complainant has not been able to place on record any document which could show that the same were wrongly levied. On the other hand, the OP have explained that these charges were routinely charged and no special privilege was granted to the complainants.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court in SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

Therefore, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to both the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.