DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                         Consumer Complaint No.501 of 2015                                          Date of institution:  06.10.2015                           Date of decision:     09.11.2017 

1.     Subhash Chander Vij S/o Late Sh. Satpal Vij R/o HL-62 Phase-VII, Mohali, Punjab, Mobile No.+91-9815006687.

2.     Meena Vij W/o Subhash Chander Vij R/o HL-62 Phase-VII Mohali, Punjab.

……..Complainants

Versus

1.     Induslnd Bank Pvt. Ltd. through its Managing Director/Authorized Signatory having its Head Office at IBL House, CTS No.179G, JB Nagar, Mumbai.

2.     Induslnd Bank Pvt. Ltd. through its Branch Manager having its Branch Office at Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                 …..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Section 12 of  

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum

Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President

Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member

Present:    Shri Daljit Singh, cl. for the complainant.

                Shri Paras Chug, counsel for the OPs.

ORDER

By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President.

                        Complainants, Subhash Chander Vij and Meena Vij both residents of HL-62 Phase-VII Mohali, Punjab have filed this complaint against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘the OPs’) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.            The complainants are Saving Bank Account Holders with OP No.2 from the past 15 years and having saving accounts No.100006031494 & 100006049505 respectively.  In the month of January 2015, when the complainant No.1 visited OP No.2 to open a new Fixed Deposit Account, he came to know that saving bank accounts of both the complainants were declared dormant and all the positive balances of Rs.7135/- and Rs.6626/- respectively in these accounts were reduced to NIL. But no notice/intimation qua dormancy of the said accounts was ever served to any of the complainants by the OPs. After repeated requests and visits made by the complainant No.1, the official of OP No.2 gave option that all the charges/deductions will be reimbursed only if the complainants convert these accounts from Savings Bank Accounts to Fixed Deposit Linked Saving Bank Account and the complainants have to move application stating reasons for not operating the account including request for reactivation of account and reimbursement of charges. The complainant No.1 agreed with the same and moved said applications and deposited Rs.15,000/- afresh in his account only on 10.01.2015. With regard to account of complainant No.2, the complainant No.1 handed over the documents as demanded by OP No.2 but did not deposited any fresh amount in the same. Thereafter, when the complainant No.1 visited OP No.2 to deposit some money in the account of complainant No.2, he was shocked to know that again the balance of his own account was reduced from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.9980/- by deducting the said charges under the garb that the same were debited earlier during the period from February 2014 to December 2014 but were lying pending/recoverable as the balance in the account of complainant No.1 got NIL in the month of February 2014 only and the same have to borne by the complainant No.1 now.  These pending/recoverable charges were never disclosed to the complainant at the time of giving option of reactivation/conversion of account. The complainant No.1 further came to know that the reimbursement of charges/deductions was a fake allurement given by OP No.2 just to grab more money from the complainants. The act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OPs to pay them Rs.12,345/- approximately (Rs.7135 + Rs.6626/- positive balance in the accounts of the complainants) alongwith Rs.5300/- deducted afterwards from the account of complainant No.1 alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deduction till realisation; to activate the accounts of complainants and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of misrepresentation and fraud played by the OP and also the mental harassment and agony faced by the complainant and Rs.11,000/- towards cost of litigation.

3.             Notice of the complaint was issued to the OPs. The OPs were appeared through counsel but OP No.2 failed to file reply within the stipulated period of 45 days. Hence, vide order dated 18.12.2015, the present complaint is proceeded against OP No.2.

4.             In reply to complaint OP No.1 raised certain preliminary objections, inter alia, that false, self contradictory and baseless submissions have been made in the complaint therefore, the same is deserves to be dismissed; the present complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the same is hopelessly time barred. As regards the facts of the case, OP No.1 stated that the AMB (Average Monthly Balance) charges are levied only when the AMB reduces the minimum monthly balance in the saving bank account. In the present case the minimum monthly balance has been increased from Rs.5,000/- to 10,000/- with due notice to the clients, such change has been notified by way of putting a notice on the notice board of all the branches of Induslnd Bank as well as on the website of the Bank. The account balance of the complainants is less than Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the deductions made by OP No.2 are totally fair and just.  Moreover, the factum of increase in the account minimum balance was very much within the knowledge of the complainants as no objection whatsoever has been raised by the complainants all these years. It is further stated that as per the mandate of the bank, if the average monthly balance is not maintained AMB charges are levied and if no transaction is done in the account for a long period of time the account becomes dormant and dormancy charges are levied. The account statement was being regularly sent to the correct address of the complainants by the OPs in routine practice, as such at this stage the objection raised by the complainants that they were not aware of the increase in account minimum balance is not tenable.  In the account of complainant No.2 there was no transaction from 05.06.2010 to 15.06.2012 and the account balance was less than the prescribed minimum monthly balance.  The deposit of Rs.15,000/- was made by the complainant without any coercion, misrepresentation, concealment or any other condition.  The complainant was very well aware that AMB and non maintenance charges were in arrears for the period February 2014 to December, 2014 as the account balance became nil in February and the made a rough calculation and deposited Rs.15,000/- so that minimum monthly balance is maintained and no further deductions/charges are levied. The pending/recoverable charges were disclosed to the complainant after which he decided to deposit Rs.15,000/- in the account of complainant No.2. After deduction were made the balance reduced to Rs.9,980/- which is less than the minimum account balance as prescribed as such the AMB charges were levied in the month of January, 2015. It has denied receipt of letter dated 18.02.2015. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             In order to prove the complaint, learned counsel tendered in evidence joint affidavit of the complainants Ex. CW1/1; copies of computer generated statement of accounts Ex. C-1 & C-2; original letter dated 17.01.2015 Ex. C-3; letter dated 18.02.2015 along with three original postal receipts Ex. C-4 and close the evidence. In rebuttal OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Manpreet Singh Bharara, its Branch Manager  Ex. OP1/1; copies of documents i.e. computer generated statement of account of the complainants Ex. OP-1/2 and OP1/3; screen shot of website Ex. OP1/4 and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for the OPs made a statement on 03.03.2016 that for OP No.2 he adopts the same evidence which has been led by OP No.1.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainants has submitted that the OPs have never informed the complainants regarding increase in minimum balance in saving bank account and OP No.2 had made the deductions single handedly.  He has further argued that account statements were never supplied to the complainants.  The learned counsel has also argued that complainant No.1 reactivated the account only after the option was given to him by the OPs and deposited Rs.15,000/- afresh.  OP No.2 deducted the arrears from Rs.15,000/- and charges for the month of February, 2014 have been deducted twice and non maintenance charges for the month of January, 2015 have also been levied.   Learned counsel for the complainants has argued that as per Circular dated 06.05.2014, copy of which attached with the written arguments, the Reserve Bank of India has advised that henceforth banks are not permitted to levy penal charges for non maintenance of minimum balances in any inoperative account.  The OPs during proceedings of the present complaint has refunded Rs.3483.16 to the complainant which fact proves that the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs has justified the deductions and denied any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on their part.  Learned counsel has argued that the accounts of the complainants were with Phase 3B2 Mohali Branch in which minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- was to be maintained. This branch is A Category Branch and as is evident from Ex.OP-1/4 Monthly Average Balance Requirement for Indus Privilege Savings Account in A Category Branches is Rs.10,000/-. The learned counsel has argued that account statements were being sent to the complainant and they have raised no objection regarding the deductions made by the OP.  Learned counsel has further argued that as per the mandate of the bank, if the average monthly balance is not maintained, AMB charges are levied and if no transaction is done in the account for a long period of time, the account becomes dormant and dormancy charges are levied.  The complainants were in arrears of AMB and non maintenance charges from February, 2014.  Learned counsel has argued that pending/recoverable charges were disclosed to the complainant No.1 after which he deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in the account of complainant No.2 so that after pending deductions, the minimum account balance is maintained. Learned counsel has thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments of the parties. The contention of the OPs that they were sending account statements to the complainants is without any evidence as they have failed to produce any document to prove this contention. The OPs have failed to produced any notice issued to the complainants informing them increase in minimum monthly balance from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- . On the other hand the complainants have produced their letter dated 17.01.2015 Ex.C-3 sent to the OP No.2 which has been duly received by the official of OP No.2 by affixing stamp in which the complainants have stated that they were assured that if they reactivate their saving accounts then all the charges whatsoever deducted, would be immediately reimbursed alongwith interest.  Thereafter, the complainant sent another complaint dated 18.02.2015 Ex.C-4 to OP No.2 through registered post, postal receipts have been affixed on the complaint itself, detailing their grievances. The OP No.2 has failed to act upon these letters Ex.C-3 and C-4 and did not take any steps to resolve the grievances of the complainant.  The OPs have tried to justify the deductions made by them on the basis of circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 02.07.2012, which they produced during the course of arguments, but this is of no help to the OPs as the complainants have produced alongwith written arguments the circular of Reserve Bank of India dated 06.05.2014 in pursuance to which the OPs have credited an amount of Rs.3,483.16 in the account of the complainant. Crediting of this amount in the account of the complainants by the OPs during pendency of the complaint per se shows that the OPs have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

10.           Thus, in view of our above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The OPs are directed to pay to the complainants Rs.12,435/- approximately (Rs.7135/- and Rs.6626/- the positive balance in their account)  and Rs.5300/- deducted afterwards from the account of complainant No.1 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of deductions till actual refund. The OPs are further directed to  pay to the complainants lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) for mental agony, harassment and costs of litigation.

                The OPs are further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order till realisation.

                The arguments on the complaint were heard and the order was reserved.         Now the order be communicated to the parties. The complaints could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe, due to heavy pendency of cases.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced

Dated: 09.11.2017

                                      (A.P.S.Rajput)
 President

(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)

Member