BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 4/12.
THIS THE 10th DAY OF MAY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- M/s. MAHARASTRA AUTO SERVICE,
Gunj Road, Raichur- 584 101.
A Partnership firm by its partner Sri. Dilip Kumar
Chhajed, S/o. Late Parasmal Chhajed, Aged about 40 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Gunj Road, Raichur- 584 102.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- M/s. ING VYSYA BANK LTD.,
Katkam Complex, City Talkies Road, Raichur.
Also at its registered office NO. 22, MG Road, BANGALORE- 560 001.
A company by its Secretary.
CLAIM : For to to direct the opposite bank to refund an
amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. with interest, compensation amount and to direct the opposite to stop unfair trade practice in future with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 07-01-12.
Notice served :- 25-01-12.
Date of disposal :- 10-05-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. M.K. Daftary, Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. S.B. Patil, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant M/s. Maharastra Auto Services Raichur through its partner Sri. Dilip Kumar against opposite ING Vysya Bank Ltd., Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the opposite bank to refund an amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. with interest, compensation amount and to direct the opposite to stop unfair trade practice in future with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, M/s. Maharastra Auto Service is a customer of opposite bank, it is doing its business by availing facilities available in the said bank. Opposite bank started debiting wrongful expenses in its account under the colour Base Location Charges, totally it debited an amount of Rs. 3,26,537.86/- Ps. in between November-2010 to July-2011. The complainant raised objections for debiting such huge amount for which opposite bank refunded an amount of Rs. 47,000/- out of Rs. 3,26,537.86/- Ps. and refused to refund balance amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. Complainant requested on number of occasions by oral and in writing, but opposite bank shown its negligence in refunding the amount and it continued such unfair trade practice by debiting the amount in the account of customer without informing him, as such this complaint is filed by the firm through its partner for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. The opposite bank appeared in this case through its Advocate, filed written version by admitting all type of transactions carried by complainant firm in its bank. It denied the allegations of complainant as it wrongly debited the Base Location Charges. It charged and debited as per the Banking Circulars, it intimated the complainant by publishing the said circulars in the notice board of the bank, in the web site and also accounts extracts furnished to complainant. Hence, the opposite bank rightly debited Base Location Charges in the account of complainant. It also acted as per the terms and conditions governing a the time of the opening account of his bank, there was no deficiency in its service, accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant firm proves that, opposite bank wrongly debited an amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. from its account without prior intimation to it, and thereafter opposite bank refused to refund the said amount and thereby opposite bank found guilty under deficiency in its service and such act of opposite is unfair trade practice.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of one of the partner of the complainant’s firm by name Dilip Kumar was filed, who was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Branch Head of the opposite bank was filed, who was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10 are marked.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and their respective affidavit-evidences, it appears to us that, the only one disputed point in between the parties is required for our appreciation with regard to levying of Base Location Charges of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. without informing the complainant or as to whether it was informed to complainant, we are not interested to see as to whether banks right or justification for charging Base Location Charges from the account of complainant, we are restricted ourselves to appreciate the fact that, Base Location Charges debited in the account of complainant was with prior intimation to complainant. Rest of the case of complainant are not in dispute, hence we have referred the documentary evidences of parties to decide the only the above said disputed point.
8. Levying Base Location Charge for the transaction of the period from November-2010 to July-2011 to the extent of Rs. 3,26,537.86/- Ps. is not in dispute. Further refund of Rs. 47,000/- out of Rs. 3,26,537.86/- Ps. by the bank to the complainant is also not in dispute.
9. The material document referred by the complainant is Ex.P-18 which was affixed with the regulations with regard to service charges on OD Account. Complainant also relied on document Ex.P-14 letter of the bank, he learned advocate for complainant submitted that giving prior notice is mandatory and bank not complied it.
10. The opposite bank is contending that, at the time of opening account by the opposite, the Rules & Regulations were informed to complainant. As per Ex.R-9 Master Circular of customer service in the bank and as per another circular bearing No. DBDONo.Leg.BC10/09.07 dt. 01-07-2010 there is no need inform the complainant. However bank has done its duty as per circulars. The learned advocate for opposite bank further contended that as per the terms and conditions bank authorizes to levy such service charges. As regards to prior intimation is concerned, bank gave statement of account to complainant and also the circulars were exhibited on notice board of the bank and also it was published in its web site. Hence the bank has fully complied the requirements of giving prior intimation to charge that amount. However the bank has taken note of good relationship of the complainant firm with bank it gave some deductions upto Rs. 47,000/-. But further request of complainant cannot be considered.
11. The learned advocate for complainant relied on the following two rulings:
1) (2007) CPJ 60 (NC) Allahabad Bank V/s. Ravindra Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd.,
2) II 2006 CPJ 122 (Delhi State Commission) Central Bank of India & Another V/s. Rajkumar Jain.
12. The first case noted above, is in respect of levy penal interest without notice of the Ravindra Flour Mill Pvt. Ltd., in that case the Allahabad Bank contended that, there was a circular for to levy penal interest and it was brought to the notice of Ravindra Flour Mill. In deciding the dispute between the parties, the Hon’ble National Commission held that, “No notice, drawing the attention to the said circular sent to the complainant, in absence with opposite bank not legally entitled to charge penal interest from the complainants
13. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides and also from the documentary evidences referred above, we are of the view that, the bank was authorized to levy such charges depending upon the transaction maintained by its customers.
14. Case noted at Sl.No.2 is pertaining to deduction of such service charges by the Central Bank of India without his knowledge. In the said case the bank was contended that information regarding the charge in the rules was intimated to customer by published it in the notice board of the bank. In the said circumstances the Hon’ble Dehi State Commission held that “ Information regarding charge in the rules be sent to every consumer personally_ General notice in premises of the bank not sufficient_ deficiency in service as proved.
15. In pursuance of the submissions made on both sides and also from the documentary evidences referred above, we are of the view that, the bank was authorized to levy such charges depending upon the transaction maintained by its customers.
16. On going through the principles noted by their lordships in the said two rulings we are of the view that, the principles of the said rulings are aptly applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. Mere publishing the circulars on the notice board of the bank or intimation given at the time of opening account or published said rules or terms and conditions of the transaction of the bank or publishing of those rules in web site are not sufficient to say that, the opposite bank has levied the amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. as Base Location Charge in the account of complainant with prior notice of it to complainant. Further furnishing the statement of account to the complainant is not a prior intimation said to have given to the complainant for debiting Base Location Charge it is account. Hence, we have not accepted all other submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite in this regard and we have accepted the submissions made by the learned advocate for complainant in the light of the principles laid down by their lordships in the said rulings and we come to conclusion that complainant has proved negligence of the opposite bank in charging of Rs. 2,79,537.86/-Ps. as a Base Location Charge is illegal deduction and further we are of the view that, such practice of the opposite bank is nothing but it has indulged an unfair trade practice, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
17. As regard to Point No-2 is concerned, it is undisputed fact that, total amount of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. is debited in the account of the complainant by refunding only Rs. 47,000/- out of total deduction of Rs. 3,26,537.86/- Ps. as such complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. from the opposite bank. As regards to deficiency in service, the complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 3,000/-.
18. The complainant is entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 2,79,537.86/- Ps. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. The opposite bank is hereby directed to stop unfair trade practice here afterwards by deducting the amount without prior intimation to its customers accordingly, we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
19. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant firm is partly allowed.
The complainant firm is entitled to get a total amount of Rs. 2, 82,537.86/- Ps. from the opposite bank.
The complainant is entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 2,82,537.86/- Ps. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
Opposite bank is hereby directed to stop unfair trade practice of deducting the amount in the account of the complainant or of other customers without prior notice of them.
Opposite bank is hereby granted one month time to comply this order from the date of this judgment
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 10-05-2012)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur District Consumer Forum Raichur District Consumer Forum Raichur.
