Punjab

Sangrur

CC/264/2015

Harsimranjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Vineet Duggal

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    264

                                                Instituted on:      04.05.2015

                                                Decided on:       08.09.2015

 

 

Harsimranjit Singh son of Premjit Singh, resident of backside Government Ranbir College, Street No.5, Sardar Basti, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

The AXIS Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

                                                        …Opposite party

 

For the complainant    :               Shri Vineet Duggal, Adv.

For Opposite party     :               Shri N.S.Sahni, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Harsimranjit Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained the services of the OP by opening a current account bearing number 914020033146531 and at that time it was agreed to maintain minimum quarterly average balance of Rs.5000/- by the complainant in the account. It is further averred that on 14.3.2015 the complainant received a message on his mobile phone and was shocked to see that the OP illegally deducted Rs.3535/- from his said account, as such he approached the OP to inquire into the matter, then the OP assured that the same will be credited in his account. It is further averred that when the said amount was not credited in his account, the complainant got the statement of his said account and after thorough reading the same, it was found that the OP illegally deducted the amount on account of consolidated charges a number of times, which is said to be illegal one.  The complainant approached the OP so many times for refund of the same and also got served a legal notice dated 15.4.2015, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.5000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply, it has been admitted that the complainant opened his current account with the OP and it has been denied that at the time of opening the account, it was agreed to maintain minimum quarterly average balance of Rs.5000/-. It has been stated that the complainant had opened a CABPL account (Current account business privilege account) and the complainant was to maintain Rs.5,00,000/- per month in his account, but the complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the bank, as he was required to maintain a balance of Rs.5,00,000/-. It has been denied that the Op has illegally deducted an amount of Rs.3535/- from the account of the complainant.  It has been stated further that all the deductions/charges are as per the rules and regulations of the bank.  The consolidated charges are towards the ATM withdrawal fee. Two entries of ATM withdrawal are free in a month and thereafter, the complainant has to pay the charges for the same. It is stated that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit of the complainant, Ex.C-2 copy of accounts statement for the period 1.6.2014 to 12.4.2015, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 postal receipt and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP/1 affidavit, Ex.OP/2 copy of account opening form, Ex.OP/3 copy of schedule of charges and Ex.OP-4 copy of performa of schedule of charges and closed evidence.

 

4.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a current account bearing number 914020033146531 with the OP. It is further not in dispute that the OP has deducted an amount of Rs.3535/- and thereafter such amounts were deducted on account of consolidated charges.  The complainant has disputed the deduction of the charges saying illegal one, but the OP has said that the same have been charged legally according to the terms and conditions of the bank.

 

6.             The learned counsel for the OP has further contended that the consolidated charges levied in the accounts statement, the copies of which is on record as Ex.C-2, is on account of usage of the ATM, as two entries of ATM withdrawal are free and thereafter the complainant has to pay the charges  for the same.  But, no such terms and conditions have been produced on record by the OP nor the same have been brought to our notice for our perusal.   As such, we are of the considered opinion that the OP has charged illegally the amount of consolidated charges i.e. Rs.3735/- from the complainant, as is evident from the copy of statement, which is on record as Ex.C-2.

 

7.             The learned counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant is operating the current account in question for commercial purpose, as such he is not a consumer and cannot maintain the present complaint before this Forum.  To support such a contention, he has cited Shushma Goel versus Punjab National Bank 2011(2) CPJ 270 (NC), wherein the complainant Shushma Goel opened a current account with the OP in the name of Bonanza Portfolio Ltd and when she got her passbook updated,  she found that Rs.2,35,000/- had been transferred from this account through two cheques and deposited in the saving bank account of one Ranjit Singh on 11 June, 2008 and on the very next day,  the said Ranjit Singh withdrew this entire amount through a withdrawal form and Rs.35,000/- through ATM. On enquiry, the complainant found that no person by the name Ranjit Singh resided on the address given nor had Mehar Singh introduced any Ranjit Singh to the bank, at the time of opening of an account in the name of the latter on 2 June, 2008. District forum allowed the complaint and held that Punjab National Bank is liable to pay Rs.2,35,000/- to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of the complaint. Thereafter an appeal was filed before the Hon’ble State Commission  and the Hon’ble State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint. Thereafter the complainant filed a revision petition further before the Hon’ble National Commission and it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that the revisionist is engaged in business of the share trading and is an authorised agent of M/s. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd, as such it was further held that entire matter in complaint relates to operation of a bank account maintained by a commercial organization for a commercial purpose. Complainant is not a consumer and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the State commission.  In the present case, the position is entirely different as the present complaint has been filed by an individual and the case is regarding illegal charging of consolidation charges.  As such, this citation is not at all helpful to the case of the OP.  Further the learned counsel for the OP has cited Sutlej Industries Ltd. versus Punjab National Bank 2012(3) CPJ 82 (Gujarat State Commission), wherein it has been held that the complainant is a commercial organization and account with opponent bank was opened for commercial purpose and that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in section 2(i)(d)(ii) in view of 2002 amendment and the complaint was dismissed. But, again in the present case, the complaint has been filed by an individual and as such, this citation is at all not helpful to the case of the OP.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has cited Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. versus Dr. B.N. Raman 2006(2) CPC 542 (Supreme Court), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court of India has held that even the matter relating to activity of non sovereign powers of statutory bodies duly covered under term ‘service’ and defined under the Act are the consumers within the meaning of section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act.  However, para number 8 of this judgment is reproduced below:-

 

“8.            The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for formation of National Commission, State Commission and District Forum. These are remedial agencies. Their function are quasi judicial. The purpose of these agencies is to decide consumer disputes. Activities relating to non-sovereign powers of statutory bodies are within the purview of the Act. The functions of such statutory bodies come under the term ‘service under section 2(1(o) of the Act. Banking is a commercial function.  Banking means acceptance, for the purpose of lending or investment of deposit of money from the public, repayable on demand or otherwise (See section 5(b) of Banking Regulation Act, 1949).  The intention of the 1986 Act is to protect consumers of such services rendered by the bank. Banks provide or render service/ facility to its customers or even non customers. They render facilities/services such as remittances, accepting deposits, providing for lockers, facility for discounting of cheques, collection of cheques, issue of bank drafts etc.  In Vimal Chandra Grover versus Bank of India AIR 2000 SC 2181 = 2000(2) CPC 204 (SC), this court has held that banking is business transaction between bank and customers. Such customers are consumers within the meaning of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act.”.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion and legal position explained above, we feel that the complainant is a consumer and can very well maintain the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such, we allow the complaint and direct the Op to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.3735/- charged from the complainant on account of consolidation charges as is evident from the statement of accounts, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-2. OP shall also pay interest @ 9% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.3735/- from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 4.5.2015 till its realisation in full.  We further direct the OP to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses. 

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 8, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member