DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Rajesh Garg son of late Shri M.L. Garg, resident of House No.2070, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank, SCO 137-138, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Hitesh Pandit, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Sourabh Bindra, Counsel for the OP.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he is maintaining a savings bank account No.700-1-001969-4 with the opposite party since long.  On 30.11.2011, the opposite party debited a sum of Rs.1,654.50 from the complainant’s account.  Upon enquiry from the opposite party, the complainant came to know that keeping in view the quantum of deposits, his account has been treated as Privileged Customer Account and because he did not maintain certain minimum balance, the charges were levied.  The complainant vide his letters dated 1.2.2012 and  22.3.2012 represented that he never applied for treating him as a privileged customer and thus sought reversal of the amount.  The amount was finally reversed on 30.3.2012. However, the opposite party again made a similar deduction of Rs.1,654.50 on 29.3.2012 and did not reverse the same despite numerous visits and requests made by the complainant.  Hence this complaint

2.                           In its written statement the opposite party stated that based upon the application form signed by the complainant and other requisite documents, savings account under the “aXcess Plus” category was issued to the complainant on 20.6.2003.  It has been averred that to avoid any levy of service charges, minimum balance required to be maintained with the bank was Rs.10,000/- which was subsequently revised to Rs.25,000/- in January 2009.  It has further been averred that keeping in view the quantum of transaction and daily closing balance in the account of the complainant, his account was upgraded on 26.10.2009 to a preferred banking account in which certain privileges were offered to the complainant free of cost until November, 2010.  However, effective November, 2010, certain charges have been levied towards maintaining the account which was duly communicated to all the customers and the same was also uploaded on the website of the company.  It has been pleaded that the entry of Rs.1,654.50 was reversed on 30.3.2012 as a service gesture. It has further been pleaded that the charges of Rs.1,654.50 levied on 29.3.2012 was reversed on 22.10.2012 for amicable solution and, therefore, nothing remains due. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record, including the written arguments.

4.                           Admittedly, the account of the complainant was debited with Rs.1,654.50 on two occasions.  It is also the admitted position that the said amount was later on reversed on 30.3.2012 and 22.10.2012 on the request of the complainant. 

5.                           The stand of the opposite party is that it was within its right to levy the aforesaid charges and the same was refunded only as a goodwil gesture.  On the other hand, the contention of the complainant is that, his account was never debited with any such amount and, therefore, the act of the opposite party in debiting his account amounts to deficiency in service.

6.                           Annexure C-4 is the letter dated 30.3.2012 whereby the opposite party informed the complainant that the amount of Rs.1,654.50, debited on account of program maintenance charges, has been reversed and credited to his account on his representation.  The complainant was further informed that the said account will be converted to a normal account shortly.  However, surprisingly, this letter does not anywhere mention that the said amount has been reversed due to any goodwil gesture or to assuage his hurt or to address his grievance.  However, the opposite party, in order to rub salt on the wounds of the complainant, again debited his account with Rs.1,654.50 on 30.3.2012.  This time again, the opposite party reversed the same on 22.10.2012, after nearly seven months.  Since both times, the entries were reversed and the amounts were credited back to the account of the complainant, therefore, it may attract some leniency.  However, that does not absolve the opposite party of being deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. 

7.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.5,000/-.  Parties are left to bear their own costs.

8.                           This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.5,000/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

28.5.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER