DATE OF FILING : 13.01.2010

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 30th day of June, 2010

Present:

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER

SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

C.C No.3/2010

Between

Complainant : P.V.Issac S/o Varkey,

Marachery Puthayathu House,

200 Acre Kara,

Mannamkandam P.O,

Adimali – 685 561, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Naiju Raveendranath)

And

Opposite Party : State Bank of Travancore,

Adimali Branch,

Adimali P.O,

Idukki District.

O R D E R

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

The complainant who is a senior citizen having an account in the opposite party bank as Account No.57048043968 which was started on 5.10.2004. The complainant was continuously doing transaction with this account till 23.05.2009. Eventhough ATM facility was started by the opposite party bank, they never requested the complainant to avail ATM card from the opposite party. The complainant was keeping the minimum balance till 23.05.2009 as per the terms and conditions written in the pass book. On 13.03.2009 the opposite party has withdrawn Rs.50/- from the account of the complainant as the expenses of ATM, on 31.03.2009 again the opposite party has withdrawn Rs.326/- from the complainant's account without any reason and knowledge and on 17.04.2009 Rs.226/- from the account of the complainant without writing any reason. So the petitioner filed complaint at the opposite party's bank and also at the Zonal Office at Ernakulam. A reply was received from the Zonal Office for the same dated 23.11.2009. The complainant terminated all the transactions with the opposite party bank on 23.05.2009 because he was in fear that the opposite party will again withdraw money from his account without any reason and knowledge. The acts of the opposite party made huge loss and mental agony to the complainant. So this petition is filed for getting compensation from the opposite party in various heads.
 

2.As per the written version, the opposite party admitted that the complainant is maintaining SB Account No.57048043968 with the opposite party bank. The opposite party is a banking institution which operates as per the prevailing rules and regulations of Reserve Bank of India. The interest and other rates may also vary from time to time. The complainant has not availed the ATM facility, Rs.50/- was deducted from his account as ATM charges and when it was found that he has not used ATM, it was duly credited to his account on 28.10.2009. The interest rates and other rates of the opposite party like all other banks of our country has varied ever so many times since the complainant started account with this opposite party. The complainant has not maintained the minimum balance as per the complaint. The allegation of debiting Rs.50/- as ATM charges has been already settled by refunding the charges. The bank never stolen Rs.326/- and Rs.226/- from the account of the complainant without assigning any reasons on 31.03.2009 and on 17.04.2009 respectively. The opposite party bank has debited Rs.226/- as the quarterly bank charges for not maintaining the minimum balance in his account. The minimum balance for account with cheque book facility is Rs.1,000/- and for non cheque book is Rs.500/-. The change in bank rates and charges are available to all public at large from the bank's web site and notice board. It is practically impossible to intimate millions of customers regarding the changes in bank rates and charges personally from time to time. The opposite party is a leading public sector bank in our country with computerised core banking system. The rates and charges are uniformly applied throughout the country as per the directions of Reserve Bank of India. The opposite party has no intention of unnecessarily debiting from the account of the holders. The complainant has ceased the transactions with the bank according to his own whims and fancies for which the opposite party is not held liable. So there is no deficiency in service in the part of the opposite party.
 

3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant and the oral testimony of DW1 and Exts.R1 to R3 marked on the side of the opposite party.
 

5. The POINT:- The complaint is filed for getting back the amount deducted from the account of the complainant by the opposite party bank without his knowledge and not furnishing any reason. The complainant is examined as PW1. PW1 is an SB account holder of the opposite party bank from 5.10.2004. Ext.P1 is the SB Account pass book of PW1. The transactions were continued upto 23.05.2009 as per the request of the complainant. The transactions were done as per the documents signed by the complainant at the time of availing the account and also as per the rules written in the SB Account pass book. PW1 never availed any ATM card and service from the opposite party bank. But on 13.03.2009 without the knowledge of PW1, the opposite party deducted Rs.50/- from his account. A complaint was given to the bank and also to the Zonal office of the opposite party by PW1. The minimum balance for keeping the account is Rs.500/- as per the pass book given by the opposite party and also by the assurance given by the opposite party at the time of availing the account. The complainant was continuously keeping the minimum balance without any fail. The opposite party never informed the complainant that the minimum balance is Rs.1,000/- or no notice exhibited in the opposite party's office stating the same. The opposite party never deduct any amount from the account before when the account balance was below Rs.1,000/-. Without the knowledge of the complainant the opposite party deducted Rs.326/- on 31.03.2009 and Rs.226/- on 17.04.2009 from his account. These amounts were stolen from the account of PW1 and it made mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. It is only due to the enmity caused to the complainant by the opposite party because PW1 filed complaint against the staff of the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the letter received from the Zonal Office of the opposite party dated 3.06.2006. The opposite party is examined as DW1. DW1 deposed that the opposite party bank had deducted Rs.50/- from the account of the complainant as ATM Charges and when it was found that he was not used the ATM, it was duly credited to his account on 28.09.2009. That matter was already settled by the opposite party. Ext.P2 letter is not concerned with this fact. On 31.03.2009 the bank has debited Rs.226/- as the quarterly bank charges for not maintaining the minimum balance in his account. The minimum balance for account with cheque book facility is Rs.1,000/- and for non cheque book is Rs.500/-. The bank never deducted Rs.226/- on 17.04.2009. The copy of the statement of accounts of the complainant is marked as Ext.R2, these matters were also conveyed to the complainant by a letter dated 29.11.2009 by the Assistant General Manager and the copy of the same is marked as Ext.R1. There was a mistake entry in the Ext.P1 pass book on 31.03.2009 and an (x) mark has been noted because it was a mistake entry. On the very next line (-) mark was noted. If any change comes in the minimum balance of the bank account, it will be displayed in the Notice Board and also to be known from the web site of the bank, that matter also will publish in the newspapers. The account of the complainant is not yet closed, if there is no minimum balance in the account, it will be recovered from the deposits comes on that account. The pass book given to the complainant is not using now because, computer system has been started in the bank. But the entries in the pass book are sustainable. As per Rule 38a(2) of the banking rules, the bank charges Rs.50/- for not keeping minimum balance. The minimum balance is Rs.500/- as per the schedule. Never the balance was decreased from 500 rupees till 23.05.2009. But several times the amount was reduced from 1000 rupees. If it comes below 1000 rupees once, no charge will be taken. There should be an average minimum balance in the account. On 24.03.2009 the balance is Rs.618/- and on 13.03.2009 the balance is Rs.630/-. It is the deficiency from the opposite party that the bank deducted Rs.50/- from the account of the complainant as ATM Charges and it was repaid only after 7 months. Ext.P2 is an apology letter from the Head Office and if there is any mistake happened in the entries of the pass book that will be corrected afterwards. Ext.R3 is the circular issued by the opposite party bank.
 

As per the complainant, the opposite party bank deliberately deducted Rs.50/- on 13.03.2009 from his account without his knowledge. Another Rs.326/- was deducted on 31.03.2009 and Rs.226/- was deducted on 17.04.2009 without the knowledge and permission of the complainant. After 7 months the opposite party repaid Rs.50/- when they knew that the complainant never used the ATM facility. The complainant was keeping the minimum balance as per the rules written in the pass book.
 

As per the opposite party, it is admitted that they have deducted Rs.50/- by mistake but it was credited to his account and that matter was settled. No deduction of Rs.326/- was made from the account of the complainant on 31.03.2009. The bank only deducted Rs.226/- from the complainant's account, because the complainant was not keeping the minimum balance. It was a mistake happened in the entry of the pass book on 31.03.2009 that the opposite party deducted Rs.326/- from the account. As per Ext.P1 pass book, it is very clear that the opposite party has withdrawn Rs.326/- on 31.03.2009 from the account of the complainant and another Rs.226/- was withdrawn on 17.04.2009 from the account of the complainant. But the opposite party argued that it was a mistake happened and an (x) mark is done on the right side of that mistake entry which is Rs.326/-. As per the complainant, that (x) mark was done by the complainant when the accounts were calculated and it was rubbed by himself. But Ext.R2, the computer print of the statement of account of the complainant produced shows that on 31.03.2009, Rs.226/- has been debited from the account of the complainant. No such entry of Rs.326/- is done on that day. If any mistake has been happened from the opposite party in the entry of the passbook as Rs.326/-, that ought to be corrected by the opposite party and it should be initialled by the Cashier or the Manager in the passbook itself. But it is not done by the opposite party anywhere in the account and the correction is not seen anywhere in the Ext.P1 pass book. The opposite party already deducted Rs.50/- from the complainant's account and it was given back after 7 months, that is admitted by the opposite party. It is also admitted by DW1, that it is the deficiency from the part of the opposite party that they have deducted Rs.50/- from the account of the complainant. So we think that the bank has committed some mistakes in the entry of the account of the complainant, may be deliberately or by bonafide. Ext.P2 is an apology letter from the Zonal Office of the opposite party dated 3.06.2006. It shows that some other mistakes also happened in the account of the complainant before the incident. As per the complainant, it is written that in the Ext.P1 pass book last but one page as Rule (ii)

“If the balance in such account is below the stipulated minimum balance, Rs.50/- per annum will be levied”. It is also written that “The Bank reserves to itself the rights to alter, delete or add to anyone of these rules at any time or to refuse or close any account without assigning any reason therefor”.
 

It is also written in the very next page that
 

“the minimum balance for saving bank accounts are with cheque book facility is Rs.500/- and in the rural area which is Rs.250/-”.

PW1 deposed that he was continuing the transactions with the bank as per the rules written in the pass book given by him and according to the papers given by him. At that time the minimum balance was Rs.500/- and no notice or letter given to the complainant stating the change in the minimum balance. As per the opposite party, it is not practical to sent letters to each customers about the change of rules of the bank and it will be displayed in the Notice Board of the bank or in the Web Site of the bank. Ext.R3 shows that the minimum balance is Rs.1,000/- with cheque book and Rs.226/- is the minimum balance charges for non rural areas.
 

Evenif the minimum balance is Rs.1,000/-, the complainant's balance amount was became below Rs.1,000/- only in 4 occasions as per Ext.P1 pass book and once it was Rs.943/-. The complainant managed to keep the minimum balance on the nearest day itself. It is also clear that the complainant was keeping balance more than lakhs several times. But as per DW1 they never charge for minimum charges if it comes below Rs.1,000/- and average is calculating for the same. It is clear that the complainant has filed complaints against the bank several times because the opposite party conducted mistakes in the account of the complainant and ExtP2 apology letter shows that it was happened even in the year 2006. In this case also the bank has admitted that some mistake has been happened to the entries of the account of the complainant. It is admitted that Rs.50/- was deducted from his account by a mistake happened to the bank. So there are irregularities caused in the account of the complainant several times by the act of the opposite party. PW1 deposed that it is because of the enmity against the complainant by the staff of the bank, because he filed complaint against them to higher authorities. The complainant who is a senior citizen caused heavy mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite party. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party and we think that Rs.1,500/- can be awarded as compensation for deficiency in service.
 

In the result, the petition allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,500/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.1000/- as costs of this petition to the complainant within one month of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2010

                                   Sd/-
 

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)

                                  Sd/-
 

SMT. SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)

                                  Sd/-
 

SMT. BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of Complainant :

PW1 - P.V.Issac

On the side of Opposite Party :

DW1 - P.K.Ajayan

Exhibits:

On the side of Complainant:

Ext.P1 - S.B Account Pass Book

Ext.P2 - Reply Letter No.AGM V/E/GEN dated 3.06.2006 of Assistant General Manager, SBT Zonal Office, Ernakulam

On the side of Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - Copy of Letter dated 23.11.2009 issued by the Assistant General Manager, SBT Zonal Office, Ernakulam

Ext.R2 - Copy of Statement of Account of complainant

Ext.R3 - Circular No.SNP/51/2008 dated 22.12.2008 issued by the  Systems and Procedures Department, SBT, Thiruvananthapuram