Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/49/2016

Rajinder Pal Singh Chopra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In person

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/49/2016
Date  of  Institution	:	21/01/2016
Date   of   Decision	:	28/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Rajinder Pal Singh Chopra S/o Sh. Harbans Singh Chopra, resident of House No. 5604, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

Indusind Bank Limited, through Branch Manager, Indusind Bank Limited, SCO 55-57, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

……………  Opposite Party

BEFORE:    MRS. SURJEET KAUR          PRESIDING MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Rajinder Pal Singh Chopra, Complainant in person
For Opposite Party	:	Sh. Paras Chugh, Advocate

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that the Complainant obtained couple of Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) jointly with his father namely Harbans Singh Chopra, ranging from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- from the Opposite Party for varying terms, with mode of operation as EOS. It has been alleged that the Opposite Party without intimation and knowledge of the Complainant or joint holder had deducted charges from the SB a/c several times during June 2003 to June 2004 on the wrong pretext of non-maintenance of minimum balance which were later on partially reversed in the month of October, 2004. In the similar manner, again the Opposite Party had deducted charges from the SB a/c several times during June 2012 to October 2014 amounting to Rs.8879.41/-. The charges so deducted have been partially refunded on 27.02.2016 amounting to Rs.6463.67P pertaining to the period from December 2012 to July 2014 instead of from June 2012 to October 2014. It has been alleged that there is no requirement for maintaining Minimum Balance and thus no penal charges are applicable to basic saving account for Non-maintenance of Minimum Balance. Moreover, as the Complainant had FDR of an amount more than Rs.50,000/-the provision of minimum balance is not applicable to him. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, pleading that the account holder of any SB a/c is required to maintain a minimum average monthly balance of Rs.10,000/- and in default thereto the charges are leviable. In the present case, the charges levied for the period of June, 2003 to June 2004 have already been reversed in the month of October, 2004. It has been asserted that the opening balance of the Complainant was Rs.8260.84/- which was less than the required Minimum Average Monthly Balance. The deduction of Rs.280.90 per month which was made in the account after 2012 is due to the fact that the AMB condition was revised by the bank and communication with reference to the same was sent to the customer through normal post, through notices put up on the notice board of the branch, the official website of the bank and being printed on the physical statement being sent to the customer regularly. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Controverting the allegations contained in the written statement and reiterating the pleadings in the Complaint, the Complainant filed the rejoinders.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard and Complainant in person and learned counsel for the Opposite Party and have also perused the entire record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

7.      The main grievance of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party has deducted non-maintenance charges from his account inspite of fulfilling the conditions of minimum average balance requirements and has also deducted the dormancy charges for certain periods illegally.

 

8.      We have gone through the documents placed at Annexure C-13 and C-14 respectively placed on record by the Complainant, wherein fixed deposits in lieu of minimum balance can be kept by the Complainant. On perusal of Annexure C-15, we find that the charges deducted by the Opposite Party have been reversed in most of the cases.

 

9.      Per contra, the stand taken by the Opposite Party that the charges have been deducted due to non-maintenance of the minimum balance in the account does not hold good, in view of the fact that it had itself refunded the charges in most of the cases as is evident from Annexure C-15. Thus, we see no reason with the Opposite Party to retain the dormancy charges and non-maintenance charges for the remaining periods as well.   

 

10.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is directed to:-

 

[a]  To refund the dormancy charges and non-maintenance charges illegally deducted, to the Complainant, and thereafter, issue him a fresh statement of account. 

 

[b]  To pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- on account of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and mental agony & harassment suffered by the Complainant; 

 

[c] To pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation;

 

11.      The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, apart from complying with the directions mentioned in sub-para [a] and [c] above, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid. 

 

12.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th November,2016                                        Sd/-   

 [SURJEET KAUR]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                                 Sd/-                      

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER