Punjab

Rupnagar

RBT/CC/18/170

Hanush Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Mittal adv

06 Dec 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CAMP COURT AT LUDHIANA

 

                                    RBT/Consumer Complaint No. 170 of 12.3.2018

                                    Date of Decision: 06.12.2022

 

Hanush Jindal son of Diwan Chand Jindal, resident of House No.213, Gulmohar Nagar, Gali No.10, Khanna, Ludhiana  

                                                                                  ……Complainant

                                                        Versus

 

1. Punjab National Bank, GT Road, Khanna through its Authorized Officer/Manager
2. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, GT Road, Khanna    

                                                                                ….Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM:-

                SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

                SMT. RANVIR KAUR, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:-

      Sh. Gautam Lahoria, Adv. For complainant

      Sh. SK Dhir, Adv. For Ops

 

ORDER:-

SH. RANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

          The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint received by way of transfer from District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant against the opposite parties on the ground that the complainant is having an account bearing No.0265000108652964 with OP bank since 2011 in the name of Hanush Jindal (complainant). The complainant has been using the services of OP since 2011, OP has been deducting arbitrary charges i.e. ISO Deposit and clearing charges along with other charges also from the account of the complainant regularly from 8.7.2011 to 12.6.2012 without intimating or informing him and without his prior consent and when the complainant enquired about the same, the OP did not give any satisfactory reply to him. The complainant has also opened one locker in the OP bank on the request of the bank employee as the OP bank told the complainant that their locker rent is very less compared to other private banks. In this way, the complainant into buying the locker with their bank and the complainant paid a sum of Rs.800/- on 4.3.2013 when he brought the locker for the first time in the OP bank, but thereafter the OP bank deducted a sum of Rs.1145/- from the account of the complainant as the rent for the locker and also Rs.1380/0- as the rent for the locker. This increase in the rent of locker was the complainant and OP did not take any written consent from the complainant to deduct an increased sum of rent for the locker. Moreover, the OP bank also induced the complainant to buy an FDR in their bank by saying that the locker charges will be deducted from the interest of the FDR and the complainant want have to pay anything extra to them. The complainant contacted the OP bank a number of times regarding the above said matter but no bank employee of the OP bank gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant sought the following reliefs against the OPs:-

1. To pay the claim amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. 
2. In reply, the OP Nos.1 &2 have filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint filed by the complainant is concocted, misleading, false and wrong and so the called facts narrated in the complaint are contrary to each other; that neither there is any negligence nor neither deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of answering OP; that the present complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive/just to take the undue advantage from the Hon’ble Commission by demanding the compensation. On merits, it is stated that complainant had availed the facility of banking services by opening an account under the category of saving account in the year 2011, from opposite parties and accordingly executed various documents that includes account opening from including agreement. The account opening agreement clearly stipulated in clause No.32 attached to this reply, that the OP is at liberty to charge for various services being provided from time to time and such applicable charges shall be debited from the said account from time to time.  The answering OP acted as facilitator to the complainant by providing desired services to his bank account, which used to get debited/credited from time to time, including other services as desired by the complainant. The debits that had been made from the saving account of the complainant are under the heads of ISO which means Inter-sol (cash handling and inter sol cash deposit charges). The debits of ISO were made from the said savings account on various dates which including various dates. It is further stated that to assist this court to adjudicate  the matter in issue by assessing actual and factual on record, it is note that the alleged Rs.800/- was charged on 4.3.2013 as locker rent as per circular No.46 dated 22.11.2010. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs.
3.  The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit along with documents in support of their version and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has tendered documents and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OPs and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.
5. That the complainant in his complaint stated that he is resident of District Ludhiana and is falls within the jurisdiction of District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana. This fact is not disputed by the OPs No.1 & 2. It is not disputed by the OPs that the complainant is a customer of the OPs No.1 & 2 since 2011.  
6. Now, in para No.3,4,5 & 8 of the compliant, the complainant has stated that bank is deducting certain charges without his knowledge and without any justification as a rent/service charges for the operation of locker with the OP bank. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs. Complainant further stated in the bank also induced him to buy an FDR in the bank by saying that the locker charges will be deducted from the interest of the FDR and the complainant want have to pay anything extra to them (OPs). Complainant could not placed on record any documents as a proof for the same.
7. The OPs submitted the written reply to the complaint and have stated in para No.3 of the preliminary objections and in this para they have put forth the justification for deduction of various service charges. The OPs have also attached various circulars on the basis of which the OPs have deducted the charges. In para No.3 of the reply, the OPs have categorically stated that there is no deficiency in service/unfair trade practice and the complaint is liable to be dismissed on merit.
8. Both the parties were heard in detail and this we have gone through the evidence placed on record by both the parties, we observed that OPs bank has deducted the charges as per circulars issued by the head office from time to time. Therefore, we did not agree with the contentions raised by the complainant and the complainant has failed to prove his case.
9. In view of our above discussion, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.  Free certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties, as per rules. The file be sent back to the District Consumer Commission, Ludhiana, for consigning the same to the Record Room. 

           Announced:

           06.12.2022

                                                                            (RANJIT SINGH)

                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                            (RANVIR KAUR)

                                                                            MEMBER