Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/192/2022

P.G. Shunmugam - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Overseas Bank, Rep. by its Chief Executive Officer, - Opp.Party(s)

P.G. Shunmugam

16 May 2023

ORDER

  Date of Complaint Filed:24.05.2022

  Date of Reservation     :19.04.2023

  Date of Order              :16.05.2023

          DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                    THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                    THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.192/2022

TUESDAY,THE 16^th DAY OF MAY 2023

1.P G Shunmugam,

   M-588, 28^th Cross Street,

   Tiruvalluvar Nagar,

   Tiruvanmiyur,

   Chennai – 600 041.

2.Mrs. S.kavitha,

   W/o P G Shunmugam,

   M-588, 28^th Cross Street,

   Tiruvalluvar Nagar,

   Tiruvanmiyur,

   Chennai – 600 041.                                                     .. Complainants.

-Vs-

Indian Overseas Bank,

Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,

762, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                        .. Opposite Party.

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainants      : Complainant in person

Counsel for Opposite Party           : Exparte on 26.09.2022

On perusal of records and upon hearing the oral arguments of the Complainant in person, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-II, Thiru. S. Nandagopalan., B.Sc., MBA.,

(i) The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to refund of Rs.12,550/- deducted by the Opposite Party – IOB being the excess debits made to Savings account of the Complainant and to activate and operationalise savings account No.027001000029224 without any lien for any charges and to pay Rs.25,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

I.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The 1^st Complainant states that he and his wife is maintaining a Joint Savings Account  No.027001000029224 with the Opposite Party i.e Indian overseas Bank at its Anna Nagar East branch for nearly a decade and were operating the savings account on anyone or survivor basis for cheque payments and for furnishing ECS/Auto Debit mandates. The 1^st Complainant stated that he had given few ECS / NACH debit mandates for auto debits since June 2018 and later gave instructions for stopping auto debits. The Opposite Party had charged ECS Registration Charges initially and had also been periodically charging "SMS Alert Charges'' periodically. Contact details of the Complainant are correctly updated with even Mobile No 9500193005 registered for SMS/OTP alerts and with Email as "vijayalakshmi1972@gmail.com" for mail alerts and communications. Further the 1st Complainant state that on 07.12.2018 the Opposite Party started debiting Rs 177/- multiple times as ECS / NACH return Charges for every ECS Return and had deducted about 36 such entries totaling Rs. 6372/- without any SMS / Email Alert to the Complainant, even though mobile number and email address of the Complainant were registered with the Opposite Party. Moreover Opposite Party had then dishonoured cheque no 630491 for Rs 5586/- issued by the Complainant to FIITJEE for special coaching fees for his sons education even though there was adequate balance of Rs 6178/- as on 11.12.2018 for clearing this cheque. Opposite Party had also then returned Cheque No.630500 for Rs 5000/- on 28.12.2019 even though the savings account had a clear balance of Rs 6178/- till 31.12.2018 as can be seen from the account statement issued by the Opposite Party.

2.     The Complainants further submitted that the "cause of action" continued on various dates during August 2019 when such debits continued and in effect the balance of Rs 6178/- at the end of December 2018 were reduced to less than minimum balance. In effect an amount of around Rs 12,550/- was totally debited on various dates from the savings account. Then after the 1st Complainant filed a complaint (No.201819006006090) with the RBI Ombudsman against the Opposite Party for redressal and it was only through the RBI Ombudsman's reply that the Complainants understood that the bank had marked a lien for recovery of charges and hence that cheques were returned even though there was adequate balance in the savings account. Copy of the reply dated 26.03.2019 of IOB received through RBI Ombudsman is enclosed for reference. Complainants further submit that the amount of around Rs 12,550/- so far debited to the savings account for their charges / penalty is not commensurate with any form of service extended by them and had been charged unilaterally without any express communication of such charges. Complainants state that the Notice displayed on their website on Charges for collection has no specific mention of charges for return of ECS mandates. Further "IOB Savings Account Rules (2007)" indicates at para 6 that "charges will be levied upto three times and thereafter the account will be closed with due notice". It is clear from the bank rules that the charges of Rs 12,550/- debited were not only in excess but also in violation of its internal rules, without due notice / communication and hence will fall within the definition of "Unfair trade practice" under the new Consumer Protection Act 2019. Complainants state that there were no prior / subsequent intimations by way of SMS/ Email alerts for any of such debits, even though the contact details were updated for communication. There were no replies by email / physical letters for the mails sent by the Complainant nor did the bank inform the Complainant of any form of dues / lien marking for the amount of Rs.6178/- were subsequently deducted by the Opposite Party. Complainants claims that the Opposite Party acted negligently in attending to the present complaint and is therefore liable to compensate the Complainant for the monetary loss on account of excess charges debited to the account without due notice and for the loss of reputation and mental agony caused on account of dishonour of cheques issued, in spite of maintaining sufficient balance on the date of presentation of cheques. Hence the Complaint.

II. The Opposite Party was set ex parte:

        Notice was sent to the Opposite Party and was duly served to the Opposite Party. Despite the notice being served, the Opposite Party had failed to appear before this Commission either in person or by Advocate on the hearing date and not filed any written version on its side.  Hence the Opposite Party was called absent and set ex-parte. Subsequently, the case was proceeded to be heard on merits.

III.   The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Written Arguments,  in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A-1 to A-5.

IV. Points for Consideration:-

1. Whether there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

POINT NO. 1 :-

3.     The Complainants were holding a Joint Savings Account No.027001000029224 at Anna Nagar East branch with the Opposite Party bank i.e Indian Overseas Bank as seen in Ex.A-5. The Complainants contended that they have given few ECS / NACH debit mandates for auto debits since June 2018 and later gave instructions to stop the Auto Debits. It is pertinent to note that the Complainants failed to enclose the acknowledgements or relevant materialistic evidence to substantiate the claim made in the averments that they gave a stop notice for the Auto Debits. The Complainant averred that Opposite Party periodically charging SMS alert charges for sending alerts and communications to the respective registered mobile number 9500193005 and email id st Complainant contended that on 07.12.2018 the Opposite Party debited Rs.177/- 36 times as ECS/NACH return charges totalling of Rs.6372/- without sending any alerts to the registered SMS / Email moreover submitted that Opposite Party dishonoured the cheque No.630491 for Rs.5586/- dated 11.12.2018 issued by the Complainants towards FIITJEE for special coaching fees for his sons education even after adequate balance of Rs.6178/- was available on 11.12.2018. To address the same the Complainant sent a mail to the Opposite Party Bank on 07.12.2018 & 13.12.2018 as seen in Ex.A-1 requesting the bank to refund the ECS / NACH return charges alongside seeking the explanation for returning the above cheque when there was a sufficient balance. Further the Complainants alleged that such debits were continued till August 2019 as seen in Ex.A-5 by totalling the amount of Rs.12,550/-.

4.     Aggrieved by the Opposite Party behaviour Complainants approached Ombudsman as seen in Ex.A-2 by seeking the reversal of cheque returning charges and also try to find the reason to return the cheque when sufficient balance was available. On 26.03.2019 the Banking Ombudsman RBI replied to the Complainant query as seen in Ex.A-4 stated that the Complainants gave ECS mandate on 22.02.2018 to CITI Bank favouring UTI Mutual Fund and the frequency of ECS Mandate is “As and when Presented” , But from 16.05.2018 the Complainants were not maintaining the balance in their accounts due to which whenever the presenting bank presents the ECS it used to get returned because of insufficient balance. Moreover as per the Service charges circular ECS return charges are applicable which is of Rs.150/- + 18% GST rounding off to Rs.177/- per transaction. Hence due to insufficient balance the system has Marked Lien for all those return charges. Being the Mandate Frequency is “As and When Presented” because of that Opposite Party Bank received Multiple Files from NPCI related to Customer Mandate. As the balance was not there in the Complainants account the ECS was returned automatically and subsequently Lien has been marked for the return charges. Further the Banking Ombudsman RBI reply to the Complainants stated that on 11.12.2018 the opening balance of the Complainants account was Rs.45,195.38 the Complainant given two cheques for clearance i.e of Rs.37,535/- and Rs.1482/- vide cheque number 630486 & 630490 respectively which has been cleared with the closing balance of Rs.6178.38 but due to the Lien marked for Rs.6372/- due to the ECS return charges the effective available balance was Zero because of that the another disputed cheque issued by the Complainant vide cheque bearing No.630491 of Rs.5586/- was returned with valid reason i.e “Fund Insufficient”. Hence the Banking Ombudsman RBI did not consider the plea of the Complainant requesting to reverse the charges.

5.     In another instance as per Ex.A-3 dated 30.07.2019 Banking Ombudsman replying to the Complainants query for return of the disputed cheque stated that the Account holder has authorised an ECS mandate by giving the consent due to which the bank has to honour the demand whenever the ECS is presented by the presenting banker made by the presenting bank. Since the Complainants were not maintaining the sufficient balance from 16.05.2018 the ECS presented by the bank got returned due to insufficient funds alongside attracting the return charges of Rs.6372/- which is yet to be recovered. Hence, the Opposite Party Bank has placed Lien on the bank account towards ECS failed mandate charges , henceforth the Bank debited the applicable charges when sufficient funds were available in the bank account moreover Lien was marked for the remaining amount owed to the bank which resulted in return of the disputed cheque of Rs.5586/- issued by the Complainant. Moreover the Banking Ombudsman refers to the service charge circular and schedule of charges displayed in their website for the charges levied on the Complainant. Disputing the same Complainant denies that no specific mention of charges were displayed on the website. Instead Complainant relying upon IOB Savings Account Rules (2007) by indicating the para 6 that “charges will be levied upto three times and there after the account will be closed with due notice” Hence Complainants emphasise that Bank has acted negligently by violating the rules by debiting Rs.12,550/- without prior notice or subsequent intimations by way of sms or email. 

6.     After giving a thoughtful consideration to the Complainants submissions we are of the considered view that the allegations raised by the Complainant were not substantiated with the relevant proofs, it is the Complainant’s responsibility to maintain sufficient balance when they signed and gave the consent for ECS mandate i.e on 22.02.2018 to CITI Bank favouring UTI Mutual Fund for Rs.1000/- and frequency of ECS mandate is “As and when Presented”. Hence the Complainant is liable to maintain sufficient balance when the presenting banker presents the ECS, failing which the ECS return charges were incurred, moreover the onus will be on the Complainant to prove that he issued stop notice to the ECS mandate as contended in their complaint. Hence we did not find any deficiency of service on the Opposite Party. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.            

 POINTS NO 2 & 3

7.     As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and hence not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 16^th of May 2023.

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

-NIL-

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

      MEMBER II                          MEMBER I                            PRESIDENT