| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 34 of 24.1.2019 Decided on: 9.4.2021 Pardeep Kumar s/o Om Parkash Yadav, R/o # 545-C, Ranjit Nagar, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - State Bank of India, Opposite Kashimiran Wala Gurudwara ,Branch Tripuri(Code No.11586), Patiala through its Manager.
- State Bank of India, Head Office Branch, State Bank Bhawan, Madame Cama Marg, Mumbai,400021, India, through its Chairman.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Complainant in person. Sh.Vaibhav Mangla, counsel for OPs. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Pardeep Kumar (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of India and another (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act.
Facts of the complaint - Briefly the case of the complainant is that he is having saving bank account No.20142507509 with OP No.1which can be kept with zero balance. It is averred that he visited OP No.1 on 3.1.2009 and deposited Rs.5000/- but OP No.1 debited Rs.650.09 by saying that w.e.f.1.4.2017 the balance amount was required to be minimum Rs.3000/-. It is further averred that the amount was deducted without giving any notice to the complainant. Complainant sent email dated 21.1.2019 to know as to on account Rs.650.09 has been deducted but no satisfactory reply was given by the OPs due to which the complainant suffered from financially and mentally. Hence this complaint with the prayer to accept the same by giving direction to the OPs to redeposit the amount of Rs.650.09 in the account of the complainant and also to pay Rs.50000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as the costs of litigation.
Reply/Written statement - Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply it is admitted that the complainant is having saving account with the OPs but the same is not under the category of zero balance.It is submitted that as per the required terms and conditions, the complainant was to keep a minimum balance of Rs.3000/- in his account failing which the necessary charges shall be debited from his account and the debit of Rs.650/- was only on account of charges for not maintaining minimum account.After denying all other averments, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
-
- In support of the complaint the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Deepti Wagadia, Branch Manager alongwith document,Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
-
- We have heard the complainant, the ld. counsel for the OPs and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The complainant has argued that he is having saving account in the branch of OP No.1 and the complainant had opened this account as there was facility that one can keep zero balance.The complainant further argued that when he visited OP No.1 on 3.1.2009 and deposited Rs.5000/-, OP debited Rs.650/- by giving definition that from 1.4.2017 the balance was required to be minimum Rs.3000/- which was actually not in the account of the complainant. The complainant further argued that this amount was deducted without sending any notice. He requested OP No.1 to tell that why they have deducted Rs.650/- but they have not given any satisfactory reply. As such the complaint be allowed.
- The ld. counsel for OPs has argued that in fact as per the required terms and conditions the complainant was to keep minimum balance of Rs.3000/- in his account. The ld. counsel further argued that Rs.650/- was deducted on account of non maintaining of minimum balance in the account, so the complaint be dismissed.
- To prove this complaint, the complainant has tendered his affidavit,Ex.CA and he has deposed as per his complaint,Ex.C1 is the statement of account,Ex.C2 is e-mail written by the complainant to the bank, Ex.C3 is the email of the bank to the complainant.
- On the other hand Deepti Wagadia, Branch Manager has tendered her affidavit,Ex.OPA and she has deposed as per the written statement, Ex.OP1 is the account opening form accompanied by the documents of net banking with ATM.
- The basic document on which the OPs have relied upon is Ex.OP1 but strangely enough the main page of the document Ex.OP1 is not readable. It is accompanied by account opening form and in the account opening document it is not mentioned that the complainant has to keep a balance of Rs.3000/-.If there is any condition that the complainant has to keep minimum balance of Rs.3000/- in his account then a letter alongwith rules be sent to the complainant and after that the bank is at liberty to deduct Rs.650/- as per the rules of Reserve Bank of India. So there is no document on the file which can show that the amount of Rs.650/- has been deducted legally.
- So in view of our above discussion, the OPs are directed to refund Rs.650/- to the complainant alongwith interest @4% per annum from the date of debit till actual payment. Accordingly the complaint stands partly allowed with no order as to costs.
Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. ANNOUNCED DATED:8.4.2021 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
