DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC.No.173 of 29.07.2009<br /> Decided on: 10.11.2009<br /> <br /> Monu Grover Son of Shri Surinder Grover, resident of House No. 3897, Aneeta Street, Mehna Mohalla, Bathinda.<br /> …….Complainant.<br /> Versus<br /> State Bank of India, Branch Kikkar Bazar, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.<br /> …….Opposite party.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Lalit Garg, counsel for the <br /> complainant.<br /> For the opposite party : Sh. Anil Gupta, counsel for the opposite <br /> party.<br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh. George, President.<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member.<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> GEORGER, PRESIDENT:-<br /> <br /> 1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as ‘Act’) with the allegations against the opposite party that he opened his account bearing No. 30806317782 on dated 27.06.2009, and deposited an amount of Rs. 500/- as required by opposite party. He again deposited Rs. 1,500/- on dated 29.06.2009, thus he had balanced of Rs. 2,000/-. He visited the bank on dated 09.07.2009 to receive his ATM Secret code, and when he got the entries in his account pass book, he came to know that the opposite party deducted Rs. 200/- on dated 30.06.2009 from his account. On his asking, the reason for deduction, opposite party could not give any satisfactory reply. He made requests for credit to Rs. 200/- in his account, but opposite party failed to give any positive response to the complainant. Therefore, he is entitled to seek directions from Hon’ble Forum to the opposite party to refund Rs. 200/- illegally deducted, and pay Rs. 10,000/- as a compensation for causing mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience on account of illegally deduction Rs. 200/- from his account by the opposite party along with Rs. 5,500/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite party contested the allegations raising objections that complainant has no locus standi or cause of action. Complaint is not maintainable. The Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. There is no deficiency of service, and as such, the present complaint is not maintainable. The present complaint is false, frivolous, and has been filed with malafide intention.<br /> 3. On merit also while denying all the allegations of the complainant, opposite party pleaded that complainant visited the bank on dated 26.06.2009 for opening saving bank account, after cash hours. As such, the Saving Bank Account No. 30806317782 was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance. Complainant deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and also got issued the ATM Card from the Bank on 27.06.2009. Complainant again deposited an amount of Rs. 1,500/- in his saving bank account on 29.06.2009, thus total balance as on 29.06.2009 was Rs. 2,000/-. As per the instructions of the Bank, the saving bank account holder, having ATM card facility have to maintain a minimum credit balance of Rs. 1,000/- during the whole quarter, and if the same is not maintained by the account holder on any day within the said quarter, then the computer system will automatically debit Rs. 200/- on account of charges for not maintaining minimum balance. In this case, the account was opened on 26.06.2009 with Zero balance, on 27.06.2009 there was a credit balance of Rs. 500/-, and as such, at the end of quarter i.e. on 30.06.2009, the computer system automatically debited Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, as minimum balance charges. Therefore, there is neither any negligence on the part of the opposite party nor any deficiency in service, and complaint is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 4. Complainant in order to prove the allegations filed his own affidavit dated 28.07.2009 Ex.C-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of his bank pass book Ex.C-2.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, opposite party filed affidavit of Sh. V.K. Pasricha, Manager PBD, dated 03.11.2009 Ex.R-1, and also brought on record, photo copy of deposit receipt Ex.R-2; copy of account opening form, containing four pages Ex.R-3; copy of account statement Ex.R-4 and photo copy of charging of bank Ex.R-5.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. The admitted facts are that complainant opened saving bank account with opposite party on dated 26.06.2009, and he deposited Rs. 500/- on 27.06.2009, and another amount of Rs. 1,500/- deposited on 29.06.2009, thus total balance comes to Rs. 2,000/- in the saving bank account of the complainant on 30.06.2009. However, at the time of opening of the account because he deposited an amount of Rs. 500/-, therefore, an amount of Rs. 200/- were deducted from his account automatically by computer system, as the balance amount in his saving bank account was less than Rs. 1,000/- i.e. dated 27.06.2009 to 29.06.2009. There was only Rs. 500/-, and thereafter, 29.06.2009 to 30.06.2009 i.e. end of the quarter, an amount of Rs. 2,000/- were in saving bank account. Opposite party in order to justify the deduction of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, placed on the record Ex.R-5, wherein charges have been mentioned, which opposite party can charge from a consumer in case of different contingencies. However, opposite party has not brought any Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions issued by the ministry of Finance or appropriate bank authorities, to prove that the consumer is required to maintain at least balance amount of Rs. 1,000/- through out a quarter in his bank account, for which he has obtained a ATM card. In the absence of any such instructions etc., the deductions of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, appears to be a totally unwarranted and unjustified. Opposite party being a service provider is required to satisfy the consumer by showing him the Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions etc. under which the bank has authorizing to debit the said amount from the account of the consumer.The opposite party not only failed to satisfy the complainant being consumer, but also failed to being said Rules, Regulations, Notifications or Instructions during the proceedings of the complaint before this Forum.<br /> 8. The facts of the case reveals that bank while issuing ATM Card, after receiving the amount of Rs. 500/- in the saving bank account of the complainant had a definite intention to debit an amount of Rs. 200/- from the account of the complainant, otherwise there would have been no reason for the complainant to open the saving bank account with the facility of ATM card at the end of the quarter i.e. 27.06.2009, whereas he was supplied by the bank ATM secret code on 09.07.2009. Complainant could not have used ATM card without receiving ATM card secret code, and thus the complainant was put to unnecessary loss of Rs. 200/- from his saving bank account. The ATM card even if, issued to the complainant on 27.06.2009, which is otherwise impossible because ATM card never issued by any bank to the consumer on the same day, when he/she open a account with the bank, and even if, the ATM card supplied, the ATM card remained totally ineffective conditions due to non delivery of ATM secret code till 09.07.2009. In the present case, the complainant received the ATM secret code on 09.07.2009, and thus opposite party had no reason, cause or justification in debiting Rs. 200/- from the saving bank account of the complainant. Thus, the opposite party has definitely given wrong command to the automatically computerized system, which is not justified, and therefore, complainant is entitled for refund of Rs. 200/- along with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of debiting the amount from saving bank account of the complainant till the amount is finally paid to the complainant. The complainant has been put to unnecessary mental tension, agony, harassment and inconvenience; therefore, complainant is also entitled for reasonable amount of compensation from the opposite party, which we assess in the facts and circumstances of this case at Rs. 1,000/- along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 500/-.<br /> 9. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days form the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> 10. The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and filed be indexed and consigned.<br /> <br /> Pronounced (GEORGE)<br /> 10.11.2009 PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> (DR. PHULINDER PREET)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> (AMARJEET PAUL)<br /> MEMBER<br /> <br />