DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 15th day of November 2024
Filed on : 08.03.2023
PRESENT
Shri. D.B.Binu President
Shri. V.Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 172/2023
COMPLAINANT
P.H.Helma, D/o Hentry, Pothampally House, Nambiapuram Road, Palluruthy, Kochi-682006
Vs
OPPOSITE PARTY
Punjab National Bank, Noor Archade, N.H.66, Kundanoor Junction Maradu Branch, Ernakulam represented by its Manager
(OPs Rep. By. Adv. Deepak Joy K, Room No. 31, 2nd Floor, Infant Jesus Parish Hall Building, No. 3, Opp. High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam-31)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant, a long-standing account holder with the opposite party (Punjab National Bank, PNB) since 2013, requested the issuance of a demand draft (DD) for Rs. 20,00,000 in favor of a vendor to purchase property jointly with a partner. The bank officer informed that a commission would be charged, which the complainant believed would be nominal. However, upon checking the account statement, the complainant discovered that the bank had deducted Rs. 9,440 as commission, which was significantly higher than expected. Additionally, a charge of Rs. 354, labeled as "to cash hand charges," was levied on 05.11.2022.
The complainant compared this commission with the State Bank of India (SBI), where her partner was charged only Rs. 2,000 for a similar DD of Rs. 20,00,000. On realizing the discrepancy, the complainant submitted an application to the opposite party, requesting a refund of the excess charges, along with comparative details from other banks. Despite providing the required proof, the bank manager maintained that the charges were in accordance with the bank's rules.
Following an unsatisfactory response from the bank on 13.12.2022, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, seeking redress. However, the Ombudsman rejected the complaint based solely on the bank's explanation, without granting the complainant an opportunity to present her side, violating principles of natural justice.
The complainant asserts that she maintained a quarterly average balance exceeding Rs. 15 lakhs for over five quarters, making her eligible for a waiver on DD commissions per the bank’s rules. The complainant now seeks relief from the District Consumer Commission at Ernakulam, requesting reimbursement of the excess charges with 12% interest per annum, litigation costs, and any further relief deemed appropriate.
2. NOTICE:
The commission issued a notice to the Opposite Party, who subsequently filed their version.
3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
The complainant is not a consumer and has already approached the Banking Ombudsman on the same matter, where the complaint was dismissed, finding no deficiency in service. The opposite party stated that the present complaint is barred by the principles of res judicata and amounts to forum shopping.
PNB asserts that the complainant was informed by the bank manager about the commission charges for the demand draft (DD) of Rs. 20,00,000. The complainant was also advised to use NEFT or RTGS, which would have incurred minimal charges, but she insisted on taking the DD. The manager explained that the DD commission, including GST, would total Rs. 9,440, which was system-generated without manual intervention. PNB denies the complainant’s claim that she was unaware of these charges until reviewing her account statement.
The opposite party also justifies the deduction of Rs. 354 as cash handling charges for a cash deposit of Rs. 4,00,000 on 07.11.2022, stating that these charges are imposed as per RBI guidelines. PNB stated that it is not responsible for the commission policies of other banks, including the State Bank of India (SBI), as per RBI circulars, each bank can set its own charges.
Regarding the complainant's eligibility for a waiver, PNB clarifies that her account is under the "General" category, not the "Elite" category, and she never applied for a category change. Even if it were an elite account, the waiver applies only to drafts of up to Rs. 10 lakhs per quarter, while her DD was for Rs. 20 lakhs.
The opposite party maintains that there was no overcharging or illegality and denies the complainant’s entitlement to any refund or costs. It requests the commission to dismiss the complaint with costs, stating that the complaint lacks merit and is filed with ill intentions.
4. Evidence:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit but provided nine supporting documents.
- Copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant to the opposite party, dated 21.11.2022.
- Copy of the Demand Draft (DD) issued by the opposite party (PNB) in favor of Elizabeth Martin, dated 05.11.2022.
- Copy of the Demand Draft (DD) issued by the State Bank of India (SBI) in favor of Elizabeth Martin, dated 07.11.2022.
- Copy of the counterfoil issued from SBI Thoppumpady Branch, dated 07.11.2022.
- Copy of the reply issued by the opposite party to the complainant, dated 13.12.2022.
- Copy of the complaint submitted by the complainant to the Ombudsman, dated 28.12.2022.
- Copy of the letter issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) office to the complainant, notifying the closure of the complaint, dated 08.02.2023.
- Copy of the complainant's account passbook with the opposite party.
- Printout of the "Features of PNB Elite Savings Fund Schemes" from the bank's website.
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and answered as follows:
The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit before the commission to support their case. Despite being given several opportunities, the complainant consistently failed to substantiate their claims. Furthermore, the complainant did not present any evidence and was notably absent on 13.10.2023. As a result, the commission instructed the registry on 14.11.2023 to issue a notice to the complainant, requesting their presence and submission of evidence. However, due to the complainant’s continued absence and failure to provide evidence, the commission must proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available materials.
Despite multiple opportunities, the complainant neither submitted the required evidence nor demonstrated interest in pursuing the matter.
It is well established in legal decisions that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by providing evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support a claim. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
SGS India Ltd vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849
In this case, it was held that:
“The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgment of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr., this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant. We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 15th day of November 2024
Sd/-
D.B. Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order,
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s Evidence
NIL
Opposite Parties’ Evidence
NIL
Date of Despatch
By Hand ::
By post ::
AKR/
Order in CC No. 172/23
Dated :15/11/2024
