Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/474

Sarthak Kapoor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Snil Kapoor Rep.

22 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 474 of 24.06.2016

Date of Decision            :   22.05.2017

Sarthak Kapoor aged 18 years son of Sh.Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.Ram Nath Kapoor, son of Sh.Gurmukh Dass son of Sh.Saudagar Mal son of Sh.Lardikka Mal son of Sauhneiyya Mal, resident of Block-1, House No.631/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

1.Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana-141001 through its Chief C.E.O.

2.Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Site No.5, Near Glada Office, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana -141001 through its Chief Circle Manager.

3.Punjab National Bank, Zone Office: Punjab (South) Zone, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager.

4.Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikhaiji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066 through its Chairman/Managing Director.

Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

 

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant            :         Sh.Sunil Kapoor, authorized representative 

For OPs                         :         Sh.Sarup Singh, Advocate 

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant, a student pursuing further studies is maintaining zero balance Student Saving Account No.29700-15000-11190 under PNB Vidyarthi Scheme with OP1 since from June 2012. Salient features of the above said scheme are as under:-

Sr.No.	Particulars	Nature of freebies
1.	Operation of account at any interconnected branches	Free
2.	Cheque book facility	Free
3.	ATM Card/Credit Card	Free
4.	Retail Internet Banking services (at CBS branches only)	Free
5.	Initial Deposit/Minimum balance	NIL
6.	Commission on issue of drafts for examination/other fees	NIL
7.	Incidental charges	NIL
8.	Ledger Folio Charges	NIL

 

Complainant visited OP1 on 16.8.2013 for getting his passbook updated and then he got knowledge as if Ops have deducted ATM annual charges of Rs.112/- from his account as per entry in the passbook dated 2.8.2013. PNB Vidyarthi scheme does not provide for such deductions and as such, complainant requested the Chief C.E.O. namely Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain of OP1 to reverse and credit the above said charges, which are alleged to be deducted illegally. However, he denied to do the needful. Thereafter, the complainant (then minor) sent letter dated 16.8.2013 through registered cover through his father requesting Ops to reverse and credit the aforesaid amount of Rs.112/- to the complainant’s account, but no response and reply was received. That is alleged to be an act of deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Thereafter, Ops kept on charging ATM annual charges as well as SMS/incidental charges as per details given below:-

Sr.No.	Particulars	Amount	Date
1	ATM Annual Charges	114.50	1.12.2015
2	SMS charges	17.10	7.10.2015
3	SMS Charges	17.18	8.1.2016
4	SMS Charges	17.18	9.4.2016
5	ATM Annual Charges	112.36	1.8.2014
6	ATM Annual Charges	112.00	2.8.2013

 

SMS/Incidental charges of Rs.51.96P thus were deducted, the split of which is Rs.17.10P + Rs.17.18 + 17.18P. In this way, total amount of Rs.390.82P alleged to be illegally deducted by the Ops. Likewise, complainant visited OP1 on 18.6.2016 for requesting him to reverse the entries of above said deducted amount, but to no avail. OP2 to OP4 are representative of OP1 and that is why, they are arrayed as parties. It is claimed that Ops have been cheating the complainant by charging the above said amounts in contravention of the terms and conditions of the scheme, in which, the account was opened. Those acts even has caused immense mental stress and harassment to the complainant and as such, complaint filed for seeking appropriate directions to Ops to abstain from condemnable course of action in future and to refund the deducted amount with interest @2%. Compensation for mental harassment of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- and punitive and exemplary costs of Rs.38,000/- more claimed.

2.                In joint written statement filed by OPs, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint is not legally maintainable because there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops in debiting a sum of Rs.112/- on 2.8.2013 towards ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges in the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account of the complainant. That account was opened with OP1 subject to the operative/prevalent guidelines as on 21.6.2012, with certain freebies/concessions as disclosed by the complainant. However, these guidelines were subject to change from time to time. As per the bank rules as in force on 21.6.2012, the charges     for issuance of ATM/Debit Card and annual maintenance charges to the student’s accounts were NIL. However, the said freebies/concessions admissible to the holders of PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts were not on permanent or all time basis, but these concessions were subject to changes from time to time as per bank rules. In August 2013, the head office of Ops revised the guidelines relating to PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts maintained by the students, as per which, although ATM/Debit Card is to be issued free of charges, but annual maintenance charges to be recovered from the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts. Information about these guidelines was given to the general public by uploading those guidelines on bank’s website and even by displaying them in the branches. In view of change of guidelines of the Ops, computer system automatically started charging the ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges, applicable to all PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts. So, OP1 has rightly debited the ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges of Rs.112/- vide debit entry dated 2.8.2013 and thereafter on 1.8.2014 and 1.12.2015. So, OP1 has not violated any right of the complainant and nor they rendered any deficient service. Complaint is alleged to be filed just for harassing and humiliating the officials of the bank by abusing the process of law. Even complaint is alleged to be barred by limitation. Admittedly, complainant opened PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account with an initial deposit of Rs.100/- with OP1 on 21.6.2012. An account opening form duly signed with two identity proofs was submitted. One of the identity proof was a school identity card and other was Aadhar Card. Concessions initially allowed were subject to the happening of certain events and those could be withdrawnm if the account holder ceases to be a student or the status of PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account  converted from the student to general category account. Eligibility criteria for opening the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account scheme was that a student should have attained the age of 10 years or above and he should be studying in recognized educational institution. Complainant was above 10 years of age at the time of opening self operated PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account with OP1. In the event of misuse of the account by the account holder, all the concessions and freebies under the scheme were liable to be withdrawn immediately. Status of present account of the complainant was changed from student to general on 10.8.2015 by the bank, due to abnormal transactions of deposits and withdrawals from that account. That is not permissible in the student accounts. Complainant had been mis-utilizing his account by operating the same in contravention to the permitted purposes. No concessions are admissible to the normal account holders. So, after converting the account of the complainant from student to general category by OP1, the normal charges as applicable to general customer account started to be levied rightly. Act of charging SMS Alert charges w.e.f.7.10.2015 is alleged to be appropriate. It is denied that the complainant visited OP1 on 16.8.2013. Rather, Sunil Kapoor, father of complainant visited Op1 and he was fully made aware of the changed guidelines with regard to levy of ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges w.e.f.2.8.2013. Complainant had been aware of the rules relating to opening and operating the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts and also the fact that operation is subject to changes that may be ordered as per rules from time to time. OP1 has rightly debited the ATM/ Debit Card Annual maintenance chargers of Rs.112/- vide debit entry dated 2.8.2013 and thereafter on 1.8.2014 and 1.12.2015. No right of the complainant violated by doing so. OP1 received letter dated 16.8.2013 through which request submitted by the complainant for reversal of the entry of Rs.112/- dated 2.8.2013. However, the amount   was duly debited as referred above. As Sunil Kapoor, father of complainant was fully satisfied, when made known about changes and that is why reply to letter dated 16.8.2013 was not required to be sent. The charges mentioned in the complaint were duly levied and as such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Each and every other averment of the complaint denied by claiming that question of cheating or of causing of mental stress or harassment does not arise at all. As the complaint alleged to be false, vexatious and frivolous and as such, prayer made for dismissal of the same with exemplary costs.

3.                 Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and thereafter, his representative closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.DA of Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain, Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, High Value Branch, Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana along with documents Ex.D1 Ex.D8 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments of representative of complainant and counsel for OPs heard and records gone through minutely.

6.                Two applications for additional evidence were filed in this case, but both of them were dismissed vide detailed order dated 7.4.2017.

7.                It is vehemently contended by representative of complainant that Ops have specifically admitted about charging of amount of Rs.390.82P detailed in the complaint and in respect of which, refund sought and as those charges levied in violation of the terms and conditions of zero balance saving account under PNB Vidyarthi Scheme and as such, due prayer made for directing Ops to refund the deducted amounts. As these amounts deducted in violation of the terms of PNB Vidyarthi Scheme and as such, the same contended to be an act of deficiency in service on part of Ops. However, it is contended by counsel for Ops that ATM/Debit Card Annual maintenance charges were not liable to be deducted as per rules as and when the account was opened on 21.6.2012, but those conditions were subject to the happening of certain events and those even liable to be changed as per circulars of Ops and as such, in view of change of guidelines, deductions were made as per rules, particularly when the account of the complainant stood changed from student to general category on 10.8.2015, due to abnormal transactions of withdrawals and deposits in the account. After considering the pros and cons of rival contentions of counsel for the partiers, we find force in the submissions of counsel for Ops that the guidelines regarding charging or non-charging of ATM/Debit Card Annual Maintenance Charges or SMS Alert charges liable to be changed as per policy of the bank.

8.                Ex.D1 is the account opening form submitted by father of the complainant at the time of opening of PNB Vidyarthi account of the complainant. Though, initially representative of complainant i.e. father of the complainant claimed that his signatures are not there on this Ex.D1, but when confronted with the position that Sarthak Kapoor was minor on the date of filing of this account opening form and signatures on Ex.D1 put by his father during course of arguments, then he(representative of complainant) admitted as if his signatures are there underneath the declaration submitted on 20.6.2012 on this account opening form Ex.D1. Date of birth of complaint mentioned as 1.11.1997 in Ex.D1 and as such, complainant certainly was minor on the date of submission of this account opening form Ex.D1. Through this declaration existing at clause 33 of Ex.D1, father of the complainant claimed that he is the natural guardian of complainant and he will represent the minor complainant in all future transactions of any description in the account in question until the complainant attains age of majority. Father of complainant further undertook to indemnity the bank against claim of minor of any withdrawals/transactions that may be made in his(complainant) account. So, this declaration submitted by present representative of complainant namely Sh.Sunil Kapoor to bind him and he is liable to indemnity the bank as per this submitted declaration.

9.                As per declaration mentioned in clause 32 of Ex.D1, declarant claimed to have read over the account rules and even agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions outlined in these rules vide which, the account to be governed.  Even as per this declaration, the declarant undertook to be bound by the amendments to the rules that may be brought in existence from time to time relating to various services availed under the scheme. Further as per this declaration, the declarant understood as if the bank has absolute right to discontinue  any of the services completely or partially without any notice to    him (declarant). Through this declaration, declarant declared that he has been made aware of the charges that are applicable on various services provided by the bank. Further through this declaration, authorization was given to the bank for debit from the account of the complainant any amounts that may be recovered as services charges or incidental charges as applicable from time to time. So, this declaration in clause 32 of Ex.D1 submitted by the complainant and his father after understanding the terms and conditions  authorized the bank to charge service or incidental charges as per rules as may be amended from time to time. Notice of discontinue of the services completely or partially was not required to be given to the complainant as this declaration. In view of this declaration/undertaking, complainant estopped from claiming that notice/information regarding the claimed charges not given to him or that contents of circulars Ex.D3 and Ex.D6 were not made known to him. Rather, these circulars were put on the website of PNB and as such, complainant after opening website of PNB with respect to PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts,would have got knowledge of all these circulars and changes in the guidelines with respect to charging or non-charging of ATM/Debit Card Annual maintenance charges or SMS alert charges. Even in clause 1 of Ex.D1 itself, it has been mentioned that person opening the account agree to be bound by the bank’s rules in force from time to time. When such undertaking through opening lines of submitted account opening form Ex.D1 given, then certainly complainant bound by the terms and conditions of the contract of opening account in question and now estopped to claim that charging of annual maintenance charges or SMS alert charges is illegal because the account was opened initially on zero charges.

10.              Certainly Ex.D3 of date 23.7.2011 provides that Vidyarthi account will stand automatically transferred to general saving fund account on attaining the age of 21 years by the student and thereafter, the said account will attract normal service charges at par with general saving fund account of the bank. So, this clause certainly provides that as and when the PNB Vidyarthi Account transferred to the general saving fund account, then normal service charges at par with general saving fund account of the bank,will continue to apply. Further, as per this circular Ex.D3, if once the Vidyarthi account is changed into general saving fund   account, then special freebies/concessions in PNB Vidyarthi scheme shall stand withdrawn and charges applicable in normal saving fund account shall start to be levied.

11.              Purpose of opening the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account is to cater to day to day needs of the students who are staying away from their parents for   the study purposes, after getting admission in recognized and reputed     educational institutions. That purpose specifically laid down in circular Ex.D4 to Ex.D6. Safeguard for checking the misuse of this scheme advised to be taken by the concerned branches through circulars Ex.D3 to Ex.D6 each. As per instruction no.8 of circular Ex.D6 of date 27.8.2014 for arresting the misuse of the Vidyarthi Account, an exceptional report is to be generated through menu option CTRPT by all the concerned. Further, as per this instruction, Incumbent Incharge is to scrutinize this report along with other daily morning reports. If a student account appears in the exceptional report, then Incumbent Incharge will inquire about the conduct of the account and he will go in for getting the account fully KYC        and thereafter, get it converted into general category. Necessity of                   taking these steps felt for reducing the availing of concession on fraudulent transactions in student’s accounts. When such is the procedure envisaged for checking misuse of the Vidyarthi Saving Fund account, then certainly after scrutinizing the statement of account concerned of the complainant placed on record as Ex.D7, the Incumbent Incharge of the bank was bound to inquire as to how huge amounts continued to be deposited in the account of the complainant. After going through statement of account of complainant Ex.D7, it is made out that the Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account of the complainant was opened with initial deposit of Rs.100/- on 21.6.2012 and thereafter, minor amounts in the range of Rs.11/- to Rs.4900/- continued to be deposited during period from 21.6.2012 to 14.3.2014 with exception of one deposit of Rs.12,500/- on 13.2.2014. However, perusal of page no.2 of Ex.D7 discloses as if huge amounts of Rs.25,000/-; Rs.45,665/-; Rs.23,500/-; Rs.17,000/-; Rs.18,000/-; Rs.20,000/-; Rs.1 lac and Rs.66,192/- credited in this account on dates 7.5.2014; 18.5.2015; 31.8.2015; 16.4.2016; 12.7.2016 and 20.7.2016 etc. Even debit entries of FDR of amounts of   Rs.44,000/- and Rs.60,000/- incorporated in Ex.D7 against dates of 14.11.2014 and 20.5.2015. In view of debit and credit entries of these huge amounts, it is obvious that Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account started to be misused by the complainant w.e.f.7.5.2014 onwards and as such, after scrutinizing of this account by OP1 or the Incumbent Incharge of the bank, with whom this account was opened, it was but natural for him to inquire, if this account misused by utilization it for the purpose other than that of catering to the daily needs of the complainant as a student staying away from their parents for study purposes after getting admission with the recognized and reputed educational institutions. So, if account in question converted into general category account w.e.f.10.8.2015 as claimed by Ops or through affidavit Ex.DA of Chief Manager Sh.Sushil Kumar Jain by incorporating entry in audit file inquiry Ex.D8, then no illegality committed by Ops or any of them. Rather, in case, it would not have been done by the Ops, then they would have allowed or permitted the complainant to misuse the Vidyarthi Saving fund account. Mis-utilization of a scheme has to be curbed by the Incumbent Incharge and that has been done through audit file inquiry Ex.D8 after scrutinizing the record and as such allegations of impropriety absolutely are incorrect. After conversion of this account in question into general category account w.e.f. 10.8.2015, certainly bank was entitled to charge the ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges and SMS alert charges w.e.f.10.8.2015 onwards. So, no illegality committed by Ops in charging ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges and SMS alert charges of Rs.114.50P; Rs.17.10P and Rs.17.18P on 1.12.2015; 7.10.2015; 8.1.2016 and 9.4.2016.

12.              Realizing the above discussed position, representative of complainant contended that charging of ATM/Debit Card annual charges of Rs.112.36P and of Rs.112/- on 1.8.2014 and 2.8.2013 is an illegal act committed by Ops because these charges levied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account deposit scheme. These submissions advanced by representative of complainant again has no force because after going through circular Ex.D4 of Ops dated 3.8.2012, it is made out that in Vidyarthi Saving Fund account freebies/concessions qua issue of ATM/Debit Card alone are permissible, but annual maintenance charges with respect to use of ATM/Debit Card are recoverable or liable to be recovered. As annual maintenance charges to be recovered as per this circular Ex.D4, so, if the annual maintenance charges referred above recovered from the Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account qua ATM/Debit Card, then same is in accordance with the circular Ex.D4, particularly when these charges debited/recovered from the complainant’s account after 3.8.2012 and not before that. Even these guidelines reiterated through circular Ex.D5. So, the ATM Annual charges recovered on 2.8.2013 and 1.8.2014 are in accordance with the terms and conditions of Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. These circulars as provides for the change of guidelines with respect to freebies/concessions to the customers/account holder of Saving account under Vidyarthi Scheme and as such, the charges are leviable as per these circulars, particularly when the complainant through account opening form Ex.D1 undertook to abide by the amended rules and regulations as may be issued from time to time. Moreover, challenge to those circulars not permissible before this Forum because those circulars issued in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract and not in violation thereof. So, complaint certainly is misconceived and has been filed on erroneous belief, due to which, deficiency in service on the part of Ops cannot  at all           be inferred and nor it can be inferred that they have adopted any unfair trade practice.

13.                 Therefore, as a sequel to the above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

14.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                               (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                (G.K. Dhir)

            Member                                           President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:22.05.2017

Gobind Sharma.