DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

        This appeal is directed against order dated 27.03.2015 in Case No. 607/2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum, North 24 parganas, (For short, District Forum). By the impugned order, Ld. District Forum has allowed the case ex parte against the OP.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the OP thereof has preferred this appeal.

            The case of the Complainant is that the Agent of the OP Bank convinced him for opening a Savings Account in it and he agreed to the proposal for opening an account there with a minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- only on last three days of each and every month  having  no need to maintain the balance on other days and for this no deduction or charge will be made and the account was made on 01.08.2013. But, a sum of Rs.393/- has been deducted as MAB (Minimum Average Balance) charges from  his account and the Agent informed him that this was done by minor mistake of the OP Bank and assured him that the deducted amount will be refunded to him shortly. Further, a sum of Rs.393.26 was also deducted by the OP Bank. But, the Agent and the OP Bank did not respond. So, he tried to meet the Deputy Manager of the OP Bank, but in vain. For such acts of misbehaviour and conduct, he lost reputation and suffer damages to the extent of Rs.21, 500/- . So,  the case.

            It is to be considered if the impugned order suffers from any kind of anomaly so as to make an  interference therein.

Decision with reasons

            Ld. Advocate for the Appellant submits that it was known to the Complainant that he has to maintain a monthly average balance of Rs.10,000/- and for non-maintenance of it  Rs.950/- along with Sales Tax  will be levied. He also submitted that Rs.393.26 was deducted twice on 15.10.2013 and 11.01.2014.  However, the same has been returned.

            Respondent has submitted that he was harassed by the OP Bank very much and they flouted their own undertaking made by their Agent and they regretted their such action and   reversed the charges.

         Admittedly the charges of Rs. 393.26 were deducted twice on 15.10.2013 and 11.01.2014, which have been reverted on 15.03.2014. So, the position of the Complainant has been vindicated. The main grouse of the Complainant is that he was harassed very much in such transactions and accordingly made the case  praying for compensation of Rs. 21,500/- which is his estimate for the damages approximately. The matter was heard ex parte and the whole sum of Rs. 21,500/- was awarded this  ex parte impugned order along with another compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as  litigation cost, and further a sum of Rs. 100/- per day for default in  paying. It is a kind of double punishment on the OP by awarding double compensation. Accordingly, the Complainant will only be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to be paid by the OP within 15 (fifteen) days.  The part of compensation of Rs. 21,500/- and Rs.100/- per day as punitive damages are struck off. Thus, the impugned order stands modified.  The appeal is allowed in part.