STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(First Appeal No.31 of 2011)

Amit Sharma s/o late Sh. Ved Parkash Sharma resident of House No.747, Sector 40-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., SCO 153-54-55, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh through its Manager.

              ....Respondent

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Harjot Singh Bedi, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the respondent.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This is complainant’s appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide order dated 2.12.2010 vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant and directed the OPs to refund to the complainant Rs.7,361/- as premium towards the insurance policy alongwith Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation..

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that on the persuasion of OP-2, the complainant opened a saving bank account with the OPs in May 2006 in which he was required to maintain the average quarterly balance  of Rs.20,000/- failing which an amount of Rs.600/- was to be deducted for non maintenance of the same.  It was alleged by the complainant that after going through the statement of April 2008, he came to know that the OP had started deducting a sum of Rs.433/- towards premium against some insurance policy issued by TATA AIG General Insurance Co., without his authorization, and thereafter also started deducting the non maintenance charges.  When his grievance was not redressed, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      In their written reply the OPs submitted that the necessary authorization for deduction of Rs.433/- from his account towards insurance premium was given by the complainant on 16.6.2007 through phone bank facility.  It was pleaded that he gave his consent after all the features and benefits of the policy were explained to him.   It was stated that the general schedule of charges were provided to the complainant at the time of account opening as per which he was required to maintain the annual quarterly balance of Rs.20,000/- failing which Rs.600/- was to be deducted. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

4.                      Parties led evidence in support of their case. 

5.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum partly allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

6.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

7.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the respondent and have perused the written arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant.

8.                      In sub para (ii) of para 7 of grounds of appeal, the complainant/appellant has mentioned that the respondent Bank had been deducting Rs.600/- on account of non maintaining of the minimum balance of Rs.20,000/- during the quarter preceding thereto and in this manner Rs.10,000/- has been deducted from his account.  He has produced Annexure A-4 in support of his contention.  It was admitted by the complainant in para 3 of the complaint  that as per the plan, he was required to maintain his average quarterly balance of Rs.20,000/-. It is also admitted that, Rs.600/- were charges for non maintenance of the same.  He further mentioned that he had been maintaining the said average quarterly balance regularly above Rs.20,000/-, but this fact is incorrect.  The respondent has, at the stage of arguments, produced the latest bank account statement of the complainant which shows that on 12.7.2007, the complainant withdrew from his account a sum of Rs.85,000/- and the balance fell below Rs.20,000/-.  It continued below Rs.20,000/- upto 20.12.2007 due to which reason on 31.12.2007, a sum of Rs.674.16 was deducted for non maintenance of annual quarterly balance. Similarly from 4.1.2008 to 31.3.2008 also, the balance remained below Rs.20,000/- and, therefore, Rs.842.7 were deducted on 31.3.2008.  The annual quarterly balance remained below Rs.20,000/- since 1.4.2008 to 2.5.2008 and again from 10.6.2008 to 26.6.2008 due to which a sum of Rs.842.7  was deducted towards non maintenance charges on 30.6.2008.  Again the annual quarterly balance fell below Rs.20,000/- on 6.7.2008 to 8.7.2008 and again from 16.7.2008 to 28.7.2008 and then from 29.8.2008 to 4.9.2008. It again remained below Rs.20,000/- from 10.10. 2008 to 31.12.2008 for which a non maintenance charges of 842.7 were deducted on that date. The said amount again remained below Rs.20,000/- from 1.1.2009 to 31.3. 2009 and a sum of Rs.827.25 was charged towards non maintenance charges on 31.3.2009.   In this manner, it is proved that on all the occasions when the non maintenance charges were imposed on the complainant, his account had remained below Rs.20,000/- during the concerned quarter and therefore, in view of his own admission, he was liable to pay the charges therefor. 

9.                      Annexure C-1 is the letter issued by the bank on the date on which the complainant opened his account.  As per this letter, initially the minimum balance, which the complainant was to maintain, was Rs.5,000/- but it appears to have been enhanced to Rs.20,000/- because this fact has been admitted by the complainant in para 3 of his complaint, referred to above.  The charges for non maintaining the minimum quarterly balance have, admittedly, been Rs.600/- per quarter.  The ld. Counsel for the OP/respondent has not produced any document to suggest if the complainant ever agreed for enhancing the said charges of Rs.600/-.  In this manner, the OPs were entitled only to deduct the amount of Rs.600/- and not in excess of that.  The claim of the complainant with respect to the amount deducted in excess i.e. Rs.74.16+242.7+242.7+242.7+227.25= 1029.51 paisa was liable to be allowed by the ld. District Forum.

10.                   As regards the contention of the appellant/ complainant in sub para (ii)&(iii) of para 7 of grounds of appeal, he has not been able to produce any evidence to prove if the OP forced him to stop maintaining his minimum balance of Rs.20,000/-.  If he withdrew the amount, or did not keep the minimum amount in his account, it was his own decision but in view of the fact that he was liable to pay non maintenance charges, he cannot wriggle out of the same. 

11.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant was also entitled to Rs.1029.51 paisa. The present appeal is, therefore, liable to succeed and the same is allowed.  The OP is directed to credit the amount of Rs.1,029.51 into the account of the complainant on the respective dates on which the same  (excess amount ) was deducted, and to pay him interest to which he was otherwise entitled  had this amount not been deducted . The OP shall update the account in accordance with the orders passed in this Complaint/Appeal.  They shall also pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

20^th  July, 2011                                                                               

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 [JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg