consumer forum mansa consumer forum mansa consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/123
Major Singh
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
State Bank of Patiala
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
1. Neena Rani Gupta 2. Sh Sarat Chander
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANSA. Complaint No.123/21.08.2008 Decided on : 27.02.2009 Sh. Major Singh S/o Sh. Kiro Singh, resident of village & Post Office Khara, Tehsil and District Mansa. ..... Complainant. VERSUS State Bank of Patiala through its Manager, Main Branch, Water Works, Mansa. ..... Opposite Party. Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. ..... Present: Sh.Ram Parkash, authorised representative of complainant. Sh.P.K.Jindal, Advocate counsel for the Opposite Party. Quorum: Sh.Sarat Chander, Member. Smt.Neena Rani Gupta, Member. ORDER:- Sh.Sarat Chander, Member This complaint has been filed by Sh. Major Singh S/o Sh. Kiro Singh, resident of village & Post Office Khara, Tehsil and District Mansa, against State Bank of Patiala through its Manager, Main Branch, Water Works, Mansa, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'), for giving direction to refund him an amount of Rs.1038.85 debited to his account along with interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum from the date of deduction till date of payment and for payment of compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- and costs and other expenses incurred by him in the sum of Rs.2300/-, on the averments, which may, briefly be described as under: Contd........2 : 2 : That the complainant opened joint saving bank account No.14153 alongwith his wife Harbans Kaur with the opposite party, and gave him instruction that account can be operated by either or survival. On 7.9.1998 he deposited Rs.100/-. The opposite party first changed his Account No.01170023383 and then as 55097287516 without conveying any intimation to him or his wife. On 21.3.2008 at the time of issuance of new pass book, the complainant came to know about the change of his account number and from the entries made therein he came to know that opposite party has debited the under mentioned amount from his account on the ground that he has failed to maintain minimum balance: 30.09.2005 25.00 31.12.2005 25.00 31.12.2005 25.00 31.12.2006 300.00 30.09.2007 62.85 31.12.2007 1.00 31.03.2008 300.00 31.06.2008 300.00 Earlier he had no information about the debit of above said amount from his account, although the opposite party has allowed him to draw Rs.56,500/- on 1.12.2005 and Rs.24,400 on 21.3.2008 and he was never informed by them about the requirement of maintenance of minimum balance as per the rules enforced subsequent to opening of the account by the bank of the opposite party. He deposited an amount of Rs.1200/- in his account on 25.6.2008, but the opposite party still debited a sum of Rs.300/- on 30.6.2008 in his account, as such, the opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice and his action of debiting the amount from his account is arbitrary and not sustainable The complainant served notices dated 24.3.2008, 26.5.2008 and 21.6.2008 upon the opposite party and asked him to credit the amount illegally debited from his account, but neither those notices have been responded, nor any action has been taken thereon. Hence this complaint. Contd........3 : 3 : On being put to notice, the opposite party filed written version, resisting the complaint, by taking preliminary objections; that the complainant, is not the 'consumer' of the opposite party, within the purview of its definition, given in the Act; that there is no deficiency, in service, on the part of the opposite party and no unfair trade practice has been adopted; that complaint is bad, for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; that amount has been debited as per the instructions on the subject, as such, it is not maintainable in the present form, the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he has concocted false version with intent to defame the opposite party and complaint being false and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with costs in the sum of Rs.50,000/- On merits, it is admitted that complainant, has opened the account in question along with his wife and on 7.9.1998 and deposited a sum of Rs.100/- therein. It is submitted that complainant has operated his account after change of account numbers and was himself negligent in getting his pass book updated. It is also contended that complainant has never presented his pass book while making transactions in his account. It is also submitted that as per the rules of the bank of the opposite party, depositor is required to keep minimum balance of Rs.500/- per quarter in his saving bank account and if the amount falls below the prescribed norms then amount has to be charged from him at prescribed rate. It is submitted that complainant got transferred a sum of Rs.56,792/- from his STDR account in his saving bank account on 1.12.2005, but the same day he withdrew the sum of Rs.56,500/-. It is also contended that he deposited a sum of Rs.21,000/- on 21.3.2008, but subsequently withdrew an amount of Rs.24,400/-. Rest of the averments made in the complaint, have been denied, and a prayer has been made, for dismissal of the same, with costs. On being called upon by this Forum to do so, both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. We have heard the learned counsel, for the parties and gone Contd........4 : 4 : through, the oral and documentary evidence, adduced on record, by them , carefully, with their kind assistance. At the outset, Sh.Ram Parkash, representative of the complainant, has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint about the change of account number of the complainant and his wife by the opposite party without service of notice upon them. He has further argued that complainant and his wife are illiterate persons and there is no evidence on record indicating that the requirement of minimum balance was brought to their notice at the time of opening of account by the officials of the bank, as such, his action of debiting the amount on that score from the joint account of the complainant and his wife being arbitrary and illegal is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. He has prayed for a direction against the opposite party for refund of amount debited to the account of the complainant and his wife and for award of compensation and costs as prayed for in the instant complaint. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Sh.P.K.Jindal, Advocate has submitted that the complainant has not filed his own affidavit and affidavit of his authorised representative is no substitute for the same as he cannot depose on his behalf although he can do so about the facts which are in his personal knowledge. Learned counsel has argued that complainant has conducted so many transactions in his account but never presented his pass book and instructions on the subject have been affixed on the notice board for information of the account holders regarding change of account number and requirement maintenance of minimum balance in their accounts, as such, liability cannot be fastened upon the opposite party even if formal notice has not been served upon the complainant and his wife informing the above said facts and no ground is made out for interference by this Forum as sought by the complainant through the instant complaint. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon 1998 AIR Rajasthan Contd........5 : 5 : 185 Ram Parsad versus Hari Narian, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court that holder of Power of Attorney is not entitled to appear as witness for party appointing him. As per the admitted facts, joint saving bank account No.14153 was opened in the bank of the opposite party. It is also admitted that complainant and his wife initially deposited a sum of Rs.100/- in their account but subsequently have carried several credit and debit transactions. The plea of the opposite party is that complainant has never produced his pass book for maintenance and instructions regarding change of account numbers and requirement of maintenance of minimum balance was affixed on the notice board from time to time for information of the account holders. However, complainant and his wife are rural rustic persons and opposite party has not led any evidence that notice was served upon them conveying intimation about change of account numbers and instructions for maintenance of minimum balance in their account. The copy of pass book Ext.C-4 produced on record by the complainant also does not contain any instruction regarding maintenance of minimum balance in their account by the account holder. The contents of affidavits of the complainant Ext.C-2 are corroborated by the contents of the affidavit of his authorised representative Ext.C-1. Therefore, argument advanced by the learned counsel for the opposite party that complainant has not filed his own affidavit is nothing, but misconceived. The complainant has even authorised his representative to pursue the complaint on his behalf. The debiting of amount from the account of the complainant and his wife without giving intimation is, in our opinion, deficiency in service for which opposite party cannot escape liability, even if, he has deducted the amount from the account as per the instructions issued by the bank from time to time, as evident from copies of documents Ext.OP-3 to OP-5 and affidavit of Sh.Sunil Grover, Manager Ext.OP-1. Therefore, the opposite party has no option but to refund the amount deducted from the account of the Contd........6 : 6 : complainant and his wife without intimation to them and to pay them interest @ 6 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of actual payment. It is well settled that before the Consumer Forum interest and compensation for physical and mental harassment cannot be awarded simultaneously, as such, complainant is not entitled to payment of any amount on account of compensation, but he deserves to be compensated for the amount spent by him for filing of the instant complaint. For the aforesaid reasons, we accept the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.1038.85 to the complainant along with simple interest at the rate of 6 percent per annum from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 21.8.2008 till date of payment with further direction to pay him Rs.500/- on account of costs within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The copies of the order be supplied, to the parties, free of costs, as permissible, under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to record. Pronounced: 27.02.2009 Neena Rani Gupta, Sarat Chander, Member. Member.
