CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.103/2009
MR. DEEPAK Z MEHTA
S/O SH. G.K. MEHTA
A-100, SECTOR-15,
NOIDA-201301
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
M/S BARCLAYS BANK PLC
THROUGH ITS REGIONAL DIRECTOR
GROUND FLOOR, EROS CORPORATE TOWER,
NEHRU PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110019
…………..RESPONDENT
Date of Order:18.07.2016
O R D E R
Ritu Garodia – Member
The short facts of the complaint are that the complainant allured by the representative of OP company booked a combo offer wherein he took an insurance in December 2007 alonwith a zero balance saving account. The account opening form is annexed. The complainant on receipt of statement dated 31.12.2007 discovered that Rs.842.70 had been deducted towards annual fee. After several correspondence, the bank reversed the charges after three months. The complainant while going through another statement dated 12.01.2009 was surprised to find that a sum of Rs.842.70 has been deducted again towards subsequent year fee. The complainant received a letter dated 27.01.2009 stating “that the charges were on account of annual maintenance charges and are applicable to zero balance account. Further, we wish to inform you that in combo offer the charges were waived off only for first year.” The complainant who had taken this offer from the OP bank was affronted by the unjust behaviour of OP bank and thereafter filed a complaint.
OP has taken an objection that it can change the terms of agreement as per clause 12 of the terms and conditions of the agreement. Clause 12 as stated in written version is reproduced as under:-
“12. CHANGING THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT
- We may change the terms of this agreement (including our charges) ad we may introduce changes to our service(s) at any time. You are requested to keep yourself updated with the then applicable conditions before you intend to use your account/our services ad the same will be updated in advance on our website.
- We may tell you about any changes by sending you written notice including putting a message on a statement or sending you an electronic message.”
It has further stated that complainant was informed by SMS and also by post and as such the complainant is free to close the account if he was not happy with the annual charges. OP has also revealed that this amount was reversed on 28.03.2009. The statement of account of this is annexed with the written statement.
Perusal of the account opening form clearly states that saving account as a zero balance amount and annual fee is not applicable (page 16 of the account opening form). The correspondence with the bank are also annexed. OP has relied on clause 12 for changing the terms of agreement but has not annexed said terms alongwith its pleadings. The said clause does not have any credence as the terms and conditions of the agreement is neither annexed with the pleadings nor with the account opening form. OP has not placed any evidence regarding intimation about the change in terms of agreement via SMS and post. Even the said charges were reversed by OP on 28.03.2009 which was after 09.02.2009 i.e. date of filing of the complaint. These facts clearly demonstrate that this scheme was floated with the specific purposes of collecting money from general public from the very inception and there was no intention to honour the commitment and obligation that arose from the said scheme. OP in a capricious manner changed the terms of agreement with no justification.
In our considered view, OP has committed imperfection in service provided to general public and indulged in unfair trade practices. We therefore award Rs.5,000/- as compensation for unfair trade practice indulged by OP inclusive of litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(D.R. TAMTA) (RITU GARODIA) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
