DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.481/2011
Sh. Ranbir Sharma
R/o H.No.537, Sector 22A
Gurgaon, Haryana ……Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India
Through its Manager
Palam Colony,
New Delhi ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 13.12.11 Date of Order : 19.12.15
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant is a current account holder in the branch of OP Bank, having account No.67173 since 2000 and had taken an overdraft facility. On 29.01.2002, he had taken Rs.1 lakh and cleared the entire amount with interest. On 15.04.2006, he had again taken an overdraft facility and FDRs were given as security. He made the payment of Rs.3 lakh from his account on time through various cheques. Lastly, he paid Rs.30,000/- on 03.07.2007 vide cheque No.31293, Rs.30,0000/- on 04.10.2007 through cheque No.715728 and Rs.1 lakh on 10.11.2007 vide cheque No.715735 drawn on UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. In February, 2008 he visited the OP Bank and he was surprised to know that his three FDRs total amounting to Rs.2,49,622/- had been liquidated illegally in the above said OD account. It is stated that as per the guidelines and banking rules, the OP was supposed to seek prior permission from the account holder before taking such type of actions especially where the account holder had been making the payment regularly without delay. The OP had credited Rs.1,40,000/- which was more than the outstanding amount in the year 2007. In February, 2011 he was told that a separate account had been opened instead of previous account and the account number was mistakenly conveyed by the OP Bank staff. Due to this mistake, the amount of Rs.1 lakh was credited in another new account and the amount was still lying in that account which was never opened by him. The loan amount was debited by liquidating the FDR. It is stated that in the month of May 2011 the opposite party telephonically informed the complainant that the amount of Rs. One Lakh was encashed in other account due to the mistake of the clerical staff. On 12.07.2011 he made a written complaint to the OP to refund the amount wrongly debited in the said account but OP failed to do so. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP the Complainant has prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to refund the excess debit amount with interest till date without delay.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the Complainant as compensation.
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation expenses.
OP in the preliminary submissions of written statement has stated as under:-
“1. The complainant opened a current account bearing number 01090067173 with the O.P. Bank with Rs.5000/- on 23.01.2000 on opening of account on 27.12.2000 clean over draft facility of Rs.75,000/- was sanctioned and granted by the opposite party to the complainant, at the request of the complainant and a debit balance of Rs.75,113/- comprising of OD amount of Rs.75,000/- and Rs.113/- as Banker charges was debited/transferred in the current account No.01090067173. This over draft facility was given to the complainant against security of FDRs held by the complainant. The complainant continued with the transaction in that current account having over draft facility and the operation of this account continued on 22.01.2005, the complainant finally deposited Rs.22,000/- in the account and there was a credit balance in the account to the tune of Rs.546.46/-. It is important to mention here that once again on 29.01.2002, another over draft facility of Rs.1.90 Lac against the security of the FDRs was granted to the complainant at the request of the complainant and this time the Bank charged Rs.380/- as Bank charges and credited/debited this amount as over draft in the account. Subsequently, on 30.01.2005 the opposite party debited bank charges to the tune of Rs.100.21/- and thereafter, there was no transaction in the account till August, 2005. In the meantime as per the mandate of RBI Guidelines the accounts maintained with the Banks were converted into CBS and the new number to account number 01090067173 was allocated as account number 1042982869. As the minimum balance for maintenance of current account was not in the account the opposite party Bank deducted Bank charges and finally the account was maintained at zero. On 10.11.2007 the complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- vide cheque No.715735 drawn on UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts by signing the pay in slip himself and the account was maintained. Thereafter, during 2007 till 2011 since there was no transaction the Bank charged its ledger folio charges to the tune of Rs.3850/- for the period, on 27.03.2012 the complainant withdrew Rs.44,000/- and on 11.04.2012 the account No.3004458532 was closed and the balance of Rs.44,018/- was transferred from account No.3004458532 to another account No.10429828693 maintained by the complainant by since the year 2006 which has been another over draft account i.e. personal loan account of the complainant…..
“2 It is submitted that on 15.04.2006 the complainant obtained personal loan of Rs.3.00 Lacs from the opposite party and the loan account No.3004458532 was opened by the opposite party in the name of the complainant. Inclusive of the Bank charges a total amount of Rs.3,01,50/- was credited into the personal loan account No.3004458532 of the complainant by the opposite party. As a security towards personal loan the complainant submitted FDR No.0680504 dated 16.03.2005 renewed from time to time having maturity date 28.12.2007, and FDR No.0680718 and 0680517 having maturity date 12.01.2008. Between April, 2006 till 30.11.2006 the opposite party charged interest on monthly basis on the outstanding balance in the loan account No. 3004458532. On 16.12.2006 the complainant deposited Rs.25000/- in the loan account vide cheque No.248588 and further on 01.01.2007 deposited Rs.20000/- vide cheque No.248594 by signing the pay in slip by the complainant himself. Thereafter, on 26.03.2007 the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- vide cheque No.265314 and again Rs.30,000/- by cheque No.312934. All the cheques in this para were drawn on UCO Bank, Patiala House Courts. After depositing the last amount on 04.07.2007 the balance in the loan account was Rs.2,27,524/- and thereafter the Bank charged interest on outstanding. On 04.10.2007 the complainant again deposited Rs.30,000/- and brought down the amount to Rs.2,00,863/-. On 28.12.2007, on maturity of FDR No.0680504, the maturity value of the FDR was credited into the account No.3004458532 and thus on 28.12.2007 the outstanding amount was Rs.1,22,728/- against the complainant. Thereafter, again on 12.01.2008 maturity amounts FDR Nos.0680718 and 0680507 were credited into the loan account. It is submitted that on the maturity date of the FDR, if there is no request for renewal from the customer, the Bank is bound to credit the proceeds in the account in which the same has been given as security or into any other account with which the FDRs are linked. After crediting the maturity amount of the FDRs in the loan account on 12.01.2008, the total outstanding balance in the account became Rs.44345/- due on the complainant and on this amount the opposite party charged interest of Rs.327/-. Further, on 11.04.2012, after closing the account No.3004458532, the proceeds of that account was credited into account No.10429828693 and thus there was credit balance in the account. Hence, there has been no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and in the facts narrated in the para under reply, the complaint is frivolous……”
It is further stated that every transaction in the accounts including closing of account and transfer of balance from one account to another account was done at the instruction of the Complainant and in front of the Complainant. Now, the Complainant for his ulterior motive is alleging falsehood against the opposite party and entire allegation is denied being baseless. OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant did not choose to file rejoinder to the written statement of OP.
Complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence.
Thereafter, OP was proceeded exparte vide order dated 08.02.2013.
Complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the record.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had a current account with the OP and had overdraft facility given by the OP against the FDRs as security. The Complainant availed overdraft facility from time to time and the same was granted by the OP. The OP had charged the bank charges against the overdraft facility as per the RBI guidelines. There is no denial to the averments made in the written statement. Complainant has also not met these points in his affidavit. The averments made in the written statement have to be admitted to be correct.
In view of the above, it transpires that the Complainant has not filed any documentary proof in respect of the excess amount debited by the OP. Therefore, the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 19.12.15.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
19.12.2015
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
