Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/186

Ramesh Rani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Munish gupta Adv.

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 186 dated 08.03.2016.                                                      

                                                 Date of decision: 05.02.2021. 

 

Ramesh Rani aged about 77 years (Senior Citizen) wife of Late Shri Rajpal Chawla, resident of House No.4598, Near Police Post, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana-141007.                                                                                                                                                                                                  ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. IndusInd Bank Limited, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
2. IndusInd Bank Limited, Head Office: 2401, General Phimmayya Road, Cantonment Pune, Maharashtra-411001.                                                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS. JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Munish Gupta, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Alok Mohindra, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                This complaint under Section 12 & 14 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainant on the allegations that she was maintaining a savings account No.100011370753 with the OP bank. The complainant availed flexi deposit and got issued term deposit-senior citizen of the amount of Rs.9,00,000/- for a period of 24 months  and 269 days i.e. from 21.06.2011 to 13.02.2014. The rate of interest on the said deposit was 10% per annum and the maturity amount was Rs.11,79,376.88 NP. The complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-  from her account on 20.02.2014. She used to receive SMSs of balance in her savings account on mobile No.98141-61154 of her son Anil Kumar Chawla. After the withdrawal of the amount, the complainant received SMS that a sum of Rs.45,855/-  was her balance in the savings account and the combined balance was Rs.99,888.90NP. The same message was received on 27.02.2014, 02.03.2014, 06.03.2014, 07.03.2014 and 10.03.2014. However, on 12.03.2014, the balance in the savings account was Rs.46,541.51NP and the combined balance on the same date was Rs.1,00,575.41NP. Accordingly, SMS alert was also received. The said balance continued up to 18.03.2014. However, suddenly on 21.03.2014, an SMS alert was received indicating that the balance was Rs.46,541.51 NP in account will earn 6% per annum above Rs.1 Lac, 5.5% for below Rs.1 Lac and combined balance on 21.03.2014 was Rs.77,057.51NP The complainant had not made any withdrawal between 12.03.2014 and 21.03.2014. No TDS was deducted from the account of the complainant, but the combined balance stood reduced by Rs.23,400/- on 21.03.2014 despite the fact that no transaction was made in the intervening period. Thereafter, the complainant made several visits and requested the OPs to explain about the deduction of Rs.23,400/-, but no satisfactory answer was given by the OPs. The complainant even lodged a complaint with the Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, Sector 17, Central Vista, Chandigarh on 26.09.2015 through registered post. A letter was received by the complainant from Reserve Bank of India dated 30.10.2015 directing the OPs to provide the information about the variation of Rs.23,400/- in the account. The complainant further wrote letter to Ombudsman, RBI on 17.12.2015. In response thereto, a reply was given by the Reserve Bank of India wherein it was stated that all the transactions in the account have been verified and found to be correct by the bank and there has not been any loss in the account and the fluctuation in the account balance is due to account being linked with flexi deposits. However, no proper explanation has been given by the OPs as to how combined balance in the account of the complainant on 12.03.2014 stood reduced from Rs.105,075.41NP to Rs.77,057.51 NP on 21.03.2016. This amounts not only the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, but also to unfair trade practice. In the end, it has been requested that the complaint may be accepted and the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.23,518/- with interest from 19.03.2014 till its realization and the OPs be further made to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for having suffered mental pain and agony and Rs. 15,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the written statement filed by the OPs, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and has been field by way of misrepresentation of facts and suppression and concealment of true facts. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant was a holder of savings bank account with the OPs. It has also been admitted that the account maintained by the complainant was a flexi account meaning that it operated like a normal savings account, but with an additional benefit that in case of balance exceeds the minimum amount required to be kept in the savings account, the excess amount, which is more than the above said particular minimum amount, is automatically converted into an FDR and after the said FDR attains the maturity period, the amount is transferred back to the savings account. It has also been admitted that the complainant had made a term deposit by way of FDR. It has also been admitted that the complainant withdrew a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- on 20.02.2014 from her account. According to the OPs, the balance in the saving account has to vary from time to time because the excess amount, which is above the minimum amount to be kept deposited in the saving account, gets automatically invested in the FDR by way of sweep transfer and after the maturity period of the said FDR, the said maturity amount is transferred back in the savings account by way of a sweep transfer. In this manner, the account holder gets maximum interest on his savings.  Therefore, the contentions of the complainant that suddenly on 21.03.2015, the balance was reduced is totally wrong and it shows the lack of understanding on the part of the complainant. It has further been claimed that the claim is false and frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed.

3.                In evidence, the complainant has submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA as well as affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Chawla as Ex. CB  along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C9 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RW of Sh. Anuj Vashisht, Branch Manager of Indusind Bank Limited, Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana along with documents Ex. R & Ex. R2 and closed the evidence of the OPs.

5.                We have gone through the record and have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the written submissions made on behalf of complainant and OPs.

6.                It is not disputed that the complainant was having a flexi deposit account. It is also not disputed that in flexi accounts, when the amount in the account exceeds minimum balance required to be kept, the exceeding amount is converted into a fixed deposit by way of a sweep transfer. The accountholder gets higher interest on the amount so converted into FDR. As and when the FDR matures, the maturity amount of the FDR is again shifted to the saving account by way of a sweep transfer.

7.                In this case, the grievance of the complainant is that on 12.03.2014, the balance in her account was Rs.1,00,575.41NP as per SMS alert received by her. However, on 21.03.2014, the amount got reduced to Rs.77,057.51NP even though the complainant had not withdrawn any amount from her account nor any other deduction such as TDS was made by the bank and the reduction of balance of Rs.23,400/- was not explained by the bank.

8.                To prove the allegations, the complainant has submitted her affidavit as Ex. CA and that of her son Anil Chawla as Ex. CB. The complainant has further placed on record Ex. C1, the copy of the term deposit of Rs.9,00,000/- on 11.06.2011 with a maturity value of Rs.11,79,376.88. The complainant has further placed on record the copy of complaint Ex. C3 addressed by her to the Banking Ombudsman and another letter Ex. C4 addressed by her to the Branch Manager of the OP bank. The complainant has further placed on record a copy of computer generated text messages, revieced by her from time to time as Ex. C6. According to the counsel for the complainant, as per text messages detail Ex. C6, on 12.03.2014, it was conveyed that there was a combined balance of Rs.1,00,575.41NP while on 21.03.2014, the combined balance stood reduced to Rs.77,057.51NP. However, the complainant has not proved on record the copy of the passbook or the statement of account of the relevant period. It is the definite case of the complainant that a sum of Rs.23,400/- was wrongfully reduced in her account by the bank and to prove, it was most essential for the complainant to have proved on record the copy of her passbook showing all the transactions  of the relevant period especially from 18.03.2014 to 21.03.2014. The factum of wrongful withdrawal of Rs.23,400/- could have been proved only from the statement of account or entries in the passbook. Merely on the text messages received by the complainant, it cannot be said that the bank wrongly debited or reduced the balance in the account of the complainant by Rs.23,400/-

9.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OP bank has placed on record the copy of savings bank account of the complainant, which shows that there is no withdrawal or debit entry in the account of the complainant from 10.03.2014 to 31.03.2014, which proves that no amount much less the amount of Rs.23,400/- was wrongfully debited or withdrawn from the account of the complainant as alleged by her. The entries in the statement of account Ex. R1 shows that there was a balance of Rs.46,541.51NP on 10.03.2014 and Rs.47,167.83NP on 31.03.2014. It is further pertinent to mention here that in response to the complaint filed by the complainant with Banking Ombudsman, letter Ex. R2 was issued by the official of Banking Ombudsman stating that all the transactions in her account have been found correct and there is no loss of any amount. It is further mentioned in that letter that the fluctuation in the account balance is due to the account being linked to flexi deposits. In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Commission, it is held that the complainant has failed to prove that an amount of Rs.23,400/- was wrongfully withdrawn or debited in her account.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order so as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.     

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jyotsna Thatai)                              (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.02.2021.

Gobind Ram.