Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/14/834

Pramila Kumari - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rattan Singh

22 Sep 2016

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 834 of 08.12.2014

Date of Decision            :   22.09.2016

 

Promila Kumari Jain District Attorney PPA Phillaur.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

ICICI Bank Limited Ferozepur Road Near LIT Office, Ludhiana through its Chairman.

…Opposite party

 

          (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS. VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant                      :         Sh.Rattan Singh, Advocate    

For OP                           :         Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.           Complainant was earlier posted in Ludhiana Prosecution Wing and was holding salary account in OP bank, Ferozepur Road at Ludhiana. That account was opened as a zero balance account, being virtually a salary account. After promotion as District Attorney, the complainant was transferred from Ludhiana to Chandigarh in July, 2012. Complainant was advised by her DDO at Ludhiana not to close the aforesaid account because sometimes arrears for back period had to be deposited by the DDO’s in the Officer’s Accounts, on being sanctioned by the State Government. On 5.10.2012, complainant withdrew Rs.27,000/- from the salary account through office peon Prem Singh and Rs.1000/- was left as balance. On 3.9.2014, the complainant visited OP bank for closing her account and requested the officials of OP to pay the balance. However to the surprise of the complainant, the bank officials refused to pay even a single penny on the ground that salary account converted by the bank in the saving account and as such, due  to insufficient funds of the balance lying in the account, they were consumed towards penal charges. Neither any message nor any notice was sent to the complainant or her DDO, Ludhiana before converting the salary account to saving account, so action of conversion of account by the OP alleged to be illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The complainant was even having salary account in Bank of India, Mall Road, Ludhiana on account of transfer to Chandigarh. That account was also lying dormant since July 2013. Complainant was transferred from Chandigarh to Moga and that is why, she on 3.9.2014 itself visited the said bank and got back the balance amount after closure of the said account. It is claimed that officials of OP have not provided due services and the same has caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant. Prayer made for directing OP to pay all the balance outstanding due.

2.                In written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if the present complaint is not maintainable because OP acted as per the terms and conditions of the contract entered between the parties; complainant has suppressed the material facts and intricate question of law and facts involved, due to which, matter desired to be adjudicated by Civil Court of competent jurisdiction. Besides, it is claimed that there has not been any deficiency in providing services by the OP and as such, complaint is not maintainable. Complainant failed to maintain the minimum average balance in her account, due to which, OP has no other option except to deduct the charges for the maintenance of the said balance. It is denied for want of knowledge that the complainant was posted at Ludhiana, but it           is admitted that the complainant was holding account No.001701505265 with    OP. Complainant was required to maintain the monthly average balance in her account as per terms and conditions of the contract and she has failed to do so. Admittedly, the complainant withdrew Rs.27,000/- from her account, but it is claimed that OP unable to disclose as to by whom, the said amount was withdrawn.    In fact there was balance of Rs.975.02p in the account of the complainant at the time of said withdrawal of Rs.27,000/-. As complainant did not operate the said account after withdrawal on 5.10.2012 and as such, the accrued interest alone used to be credited in that account till December 31, 2013. The charges for non-maintenance of monthly average balance continued to be levied upto April, 2014 and thereafter, there remained nil balance in the account of the complainant. Deductions of amount of Rs.393.26P on 12.2.2014, Rs.393.26P again on 2.3.2014 and Rs.278.50P on 19.4.2014 were made. Complainant was duly informed about these deductions at the time of her visit to the bank, but the complainant has not disclosed the same in the complaint. Now no amount is outstanding. By denying each and every other averment of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                Complainant to prove her case tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.CA along with document Ex.C1 and even tendered affidavit Ex.CX of Sh.Sudhir Khurana, Customer Service Manager of OP bank along with document Ex.PA and thereafter, her counsel closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Ms.Monika Jaiswal of ICICI Bank along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed and those were heard. Records gone through carefully.

6.                 Produced affidavit Ex.CA is no affidavit in the eyes of law because the same does not bear the signature/thumb impression of the complainant either under verification clause or under the averments of the affidavit. Despite that the same has been attested by Sh.Gurvinder Singh, The Notary Public at Ludhiana. Sh.Gurvinder Singh, Ludhiana has not performed his duties at all qua administering  the oath because signatures of deponent even not obtained on the affidavit at any place. So, affidavit Ex.CA cannot be read into evidence at all.

7.                Affidavit Ex.CX of Sh.Sudhir Khurana, Customer Service Manager of OP bank produced to show that the complainant opened an account No.001701505265 as salary account on zero balance. Contents of Form Ex.PA also discloses so and that is why letter from the employer giving current residential address even was sought. At page no.2 of the application form Ex.PA itself, it is mentioned that the complainant submitted application form making herself aware of the terms and conditions of availing finance or service or products from OP bank. In view of this, submissions advanced by counsel for the OP has force that the complainant was made aware about the terms and conditions on which the services for the saving account in question could have been availed by her. Ex.PA and Ex.R1 is one of the same-thing.

8.                Document Ex.R2 is the terms and conditions, on which, services to be availed in respect of the saving account in question. As per condition no.2 endorsed in Ex.R2, if no salary is credited in the account of the complainant for three consecutive calendar months, then account would be converted into saving bank account and the prevailing terms and conditions of a normal savings bank account would be applicable.These term of Ex.R2 certainly is a part of application form Ex.PA=Ex.R1 and as such, complainant cannot escape from the  consequences of this contract. In view of this existing of contractual term, there was    no obligation on the part of OP to serve notice for converting the salary account into saving account, particularly when the copy of statement of account Ex.R3 along with contents of complaint itself establishes that after withdrawal of Rs.27,000/- by the complainant on 5.10.2012, no amount was deposited in the account in question. All the entries contained in Ex.R3 reflect that after withdrawal of Rs.27,000/- by the complainant from her above said account on 5.10.2012, an amount of Rs.975.02P remained as balance due. Subsequent deposits were of the interest amount or of the entries of reversal charges or of the charges of not maintaining the salary account. As due to non deposit of the salary since after 5.10.2012, the complainant himself committed default in complying with the terms contained in Ex.R2 and as such, OP bank was at liberty to convert the salary account into saving account for charging the normal charges in respect of non maintenance of the account. This account admittedly was not operated by conducting transaction of deposit or withdrawal after 5.10.2012 to 4.7.2015 continuously as revealed by contents of Ex.R3 and as such certainly OP bank was having right to deduct non maintenance of the account charges, which it did and as such, no illegality committed by OP.

9.                Even if complainant had been able to collect some amount from her other salary account with Bank of India, Mall Road, Ludhiana on 3.9.2014 itself, despite that action of OP in deducting non maintenance of account charges is not illegal because contractual obligation in respect of opening of account may differ from bank to bank and those obligation in this case specifically is incorporated in Ex.R2 qua which, the complainant was made aware as revealed by contents Ex.PA=Ex.R1 and as discussed above and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

10.              Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules.

11.              File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

          (Vinod Bala)                                     (G.K. Dhir)

                             Member                                              President                         Announced in Open Forum

Dated:22.09.2016

Gobind Sharma.