DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/301/2021
Date of Institution: 02.12.2021
Date of Decision: 10.07.2024
Saudagar Singh aged about 58 years son of Bachan Singh, resident of Barnala Road, Khuddi Kalan-148107, Tehsil and District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Heat Quarter, “State Bank Bhavan”, Madame Cama Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 (Maharashtra), through its Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. Gurpreetpal Singh Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member
3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala, District Barnala, through its Branch Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant being the Saving Bank Account Holder in State Bank of India, Branch College Road, Barnala (opposite party No. 1) having saving Bank Account No. 33270419697, since 5.9.2013. It is alleged that the above said saving account of the complainant is also being used by him to pay the installments to one HDB Financial Services, as the complainant had purchased one Refrigerator make Godrej EONASTRA on 20.5.2021 for the amount of Rs. 23,500/- and the same was financed by the said HDB Financial Services. It is further alleged that on 29.10.2021 the balance amount of Rs. 9,193.64/- was lying in the above said account of the complainant but the opposite party No. deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- (Rs. 250/- + Rs. 45/-, as 18% GST) from the same under the pretext of “Mandate Fail Charges Transaction”, despite the balance of Rs. 9193.64/- in his said account. Later on 10.11.2021 the opposite party No. 1 again deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- from the said account of the complainant. It is alleged that in the month of March, 2020 State Bank of India announced that it will waive the penalty for non-maintenance of AMB (Average Monthly Balance) for all saving bank accounts and the same was waived off with effect from 11.3.2020 by SBI. Earlier, the saving bank customers of State Bank of India had to maintain in their saving accounts the AMB of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1,000/- in Metro & Urban Areas, Sub-Urban and Rural Areas, respectively. But with effect from 11.3.2020 the State Bank of India lifted the above said condition of AMB for all SBI customers. It is further alleged that despite the amount of Rs. 9193.64/-, State Bank of India the opposite party No. 1 deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- twice, from the above said saving bank account of the complainant and failed to return back the said amounts despite repeated requests. As such, the opposite parties are bound to disburse the aforesaid amounts which were deducted/debited. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties comes within the definition of deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to pay the above said amount of Rs. 590/- deducted/debited by the opposite party No. 1.
- To pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental tension and harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as costs and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant availed loan of Rs. 23,500/- from HDB Financial Services and give detail of his saving account No. 33270419697 maintains with the opposite parties and as per his directions, which he executed in favour of said HDB Financial Services Limited, the HDB Financial Services Limited activate their mandate to deduct monthly installment in every month, but the same mandate was failed and the system of the opposite parties automatically deducted Rs. 295/- charges from the account of the complainant. The complainant has not come with clean hands. The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant failed to implead HDB as opposite party. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint etc.
4. On merits, it is admitted to the extent that the opposite parties deducted amount of Rs. 295/- twice from the account of the complainant. The employees of the opposite parties never manually deducted the amount these amounts have been deducted by the computerized system automatically on account of failure of mandate, which is empowered by the complainant to HDB Financial Services Limited and the said HDB Financial Services Limited given mandate every month and the failure of the mandate the amounts be deducted from the account of the complainant by the computer in the month of October 2021, November 2021 and December 2021. It is admitted to the extent that the RBI directed the Banks to give relaxation to the account holders during the pandemic of COVID-19 and after COVID-19 expiry period, the RBI again instructed to the consumers to maintain minimum balance in their accounts. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. Ld. Counsel for complainant on 18.4.2022 suffered the statement that I do not want to file any rejoinder on behalf of complainant.
6. To prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence copy of statement of account of SBI Ex.C-1, copy of passbook Ex.C-2, copy of statement of account of HDB Ex.C-3, copy of Tax invoice Ex.C-4, copy of Description of service charge Ex.C-5, copy of web page of SBI Ex.C-6, copy of adhaar card Ex.C-7 and affidavit of Saudagar Singh Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Rupak Kumar Rajesh Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of Customer Request Form Ex.O.Ps-2, copy of Cheque Ex.O.Ps-3, copy of Voucher Ex.O.Ps-4, copies of Emails Ex.O.Ps (containing 4 pages) and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the parties.
9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant being the Saving Bank Account Holder in State Bank of India having saving Bank Account No. 33270419697 (as per Ex.C-2). It is also argued that the above said saving account of the complainant is also being used by him to pay the installments to one HDB Financial Services, as the complainant had purchased one Refrigerator make Godrej EONASTRA on 20.5.2021 for the amount of Rs. 23,500/- and the same was financed by the said HDB Financial Services (as per Ex.C-4). It is further argued that on 29.10.2021 the balance amount of Rs. 9,193.64/- was lying in the above said account of the complainant but the opposite party No. deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- (Rs. 250/- + Rs. 45/-, as 18% GST) from the same under the pretext of “Mandate Fail Charges Transaction”, despite the balance of Rs. 9193.64/- in his said account and later on 10.11.2021 the opposite party No. 1 again deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- from the said account of the complainant. It is argued that in the month of March, 2020 State Bank of India announced that it will waive the penalty for non-maintenance of AMB (Average Monthly Balance) for all saving bank accounts and the same was waived off with effect from 11.3.2020 by SBI (as per Ex.C-6). It is further argued that despite the amount of Rs. 9193.64/- (as per Ex.C-1) State Bank of India the opposite party No. 1 deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- twice, from the above said saving bank account of the complainant and failed to return back the said amounts despite repeated requests, as such the opposite parties are bound to disburse the aforesaid amounts which were deducted/debited.
10. On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant availed loan of Rs. 23,500/- from HDB Financial Services and give detail of his saving account No. 33270419697 maintains with the opposite parties and as per his directions executed in favour of said HDB Financial Services Limited the HDB Financial Services Limited activate their mandate to deduct monthly installment in every month, but the same mandate was failed and the system of the opposite parties automatically deducted Rs. 295/- charges from the account of the complainant. It is further argued that that the opposite parties deducted amount of Rs. 295/- twice from the account of the complainant. It is also argued that the employees of the opposite parties never manually deducted the amount these amounts have been deducted by the computerized system automatically on account of failure of mandate which is empowered by the complainant to HDB Financial Services Limited and the said HDB Financial Services Limited given mandate every month and the failure of the mandate the amounts be deducted from the account of the complainant by the computer in the month of October 2021, November 2021 and December 2021.
11. It is admitted case of the opposite parties that the opposite parties deducted an amount of Rs. 295/- twice from the account of the complainant and these amounts have been deducted by the computerized system automatically on account of failure of mandate, which is empowered by the complainant to HDB Financial Services Limited. It is also admitted case of the opposite parties that the RBI directed the Banks to give relaxation to the account holders during the pandemic of COVID-19 and after COVID-19 expiry period, the RBI again instructed to the consumers to maintain minimum balance in their accounts. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record copy of account statement Ex.C-1 from which it shows that on 29.10.2021 and 10.11.2021 an amount of Rs. 295/- has been deducted twice from the account of the complainant by the opposite parties. From Ex.C-1 it further shows that on 29.10.2021 the balance amount of Rs. 9,193.64/- was lying in the above said account of the complainant but the opposite party No. 1 deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- from the account of the complainant under the pretext of “Mandate Fail Charges Transaction”, despite the balance of Rs. 9193.64/- in his said account and again on 10.11.2021 the opposite party No. 1 again deducted/debited the amount of Rs. 295/- from the said account of the complainant. The complainant also placed on record copy of Tax Invoice dated 20.5.2021 Ex.C-4 from which it shows that the complainant has purchased a Godrej Refrigerator for an amount of Rs. 23,500/- through HDB Financial Services. The complainant has further placed on record copy of Web Page of SBI Ex.C-6 vide which it is mentioned that “Penalty for non-maintenance of Average Monthly Balance in Saving Bank Account has been waived off w.e.f. 11.03.2020”.
12. From the above discussion, it is proved that the opposite parties have wrongly deducted the above said total amount of Rs. 590/- from the account of the complainant and there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 590/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint till its actual realization to the complainant. The opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 5,500/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
10th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Urmila Kumari)
Member
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
