Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/11/2015

Gurpinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. K.S.Jandoria Adv.

09 Mar 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	11 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	06.01.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	09.03.2016

 

 

 

 

 

Gurpinder Singh son of Sh.Bhupinder Singh, Aged 22 years, resident of Village Bheronpur, Tehsil and Distt. Fatehgarh Sahib (Punjab.).

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  The Axis Bank, 9, A-Block, Square Centre, M.G.Road, Bangalore 560001, Karnataka through its Managing Director.

 

2]  The Axis Bank, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager. 

 

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

            Complainant in person.

Sh.Saurav Goyal, Advocate for Opposite Parties.

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant, as assured by the representative of the OPs, agreed  for opening a new account under Zero Balance Scheme and supplied requisite documents as well as application form, whereupon Account NO.913020014883548 was allotted to him.  Thereafter, the complainant received a Welcome Kit including cheque book and letter dated 19.3.2013 with scheme code as “CAKRI”.  That on 7.8.2014, the complainant deposited Rs.2000/- in the above said account, but when complainant again visited the Opposite Party Bank to know about the balance on 4.11.2014, he was shocked to know that there was no balance in his account.  It is submitted that when the matter was taken up with Opposite Party Bank, the complainant was told that the scheme vide which the account was opened has been changed and on account of the same, the amount of Rs.2000/- has been deducted.  When the complainant took the bank statement, it was written therein as “CA-Business Krishi” and the deduction were made by the Opposite Party Bank.  It is also submitted that the Opposite Party Bank has changed the scheme code of the complainant’s account illegally, arbitrarily and without taking the consent of the complainant as well as without prior intimation and illegally deducted Rs.2000/- deposited by him in the Zero Balance Account under CAKRI Code.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the Opposite Parties as gross deficiency in service. 

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 have filed joint reply stating therein that the complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.2 Bank on 13.3.2013 for opening the current account and signed the account opening form and current account No.913020014883548 was opening under the business krishi scheme code CAKRI. All the benefits available under this scheme was explained to the complainant and he was also informed that he is required to maintain the average half-yearly balance of Rs.10,000/- and in case of non-maintenance of half-yearly balance of Rs.10,000/-, the charges of Rs.1800/- plus service tax will be deducted in the account after half-year.  It is denied that the said account of the complainant was opened under the Zero Balance Scheme.  It is stated that the complainant’s account is Nil from the date of opening of the account and due to non-maintenance of half-yearly balance of Rs.10,000/-, he is liable to pay the amount of Rs.1800/- plus service tax. It is also stated that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.2000/- on 7.8.2014 and the charges of Rs.1800/- plus service tax was debited from the account of the complainant on 9.8.2014.  That the charges are deducted as per the schedule of charges. It is pleaded that the account statement of the complainant clearly reflects that the complainant had failed to maintain the average half-yearly balance of Rs.10,000/- from the date of opening of account. It is also pleaded that the scheme of the complainant was never changed.  Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that the Opposite Parties as made in their written reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The complainant had opened a zero balance account with the Opposite Party NO.2 at the instance of one of its employees namely Devinder Singh, who advised the complainant of the features of such account.  The complainant signed the necessary documents without making any initial deposit towards opening of such account. The complainant received a Welcome Letter dated 19.3.2013 (Ann.C-1) along with a cheque book disclosing him about the status of his fresh account opened with OP Bank.  However, after a passage of nearly about 1½ year i.e. on 7.8.2014 the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2000/- in the said account, but was shocked to know from the account statement dated 4.11.2014 (Ann.C-4) that the entire Rs.2000/- stood debited from his account and the Opposite Parties failed to give him satisfactory answers to his queries.  The complainant having failed to elicit any favourable response, escalated the matter by serving upon a legal notice dated 12.11.2014, which was not replied by the Opposite Parties thus giving rise to the present complaint. 

 

7]       The Opposite Parties have defended themselves by filing joint reply contesting claim of the complainant.  The Opposite Parties have also placed on record the account opening form Ann.R-1 and the details of the provisions relevant to the particular type of account opened with them by the complainant, as Ann.R-2.  The Opposite Parties have also tendered Ann.R-4 to R-7 after such demand of their production was raised by the complainant during the proceedings of the complaint.  Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their parts, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

8]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and find it necessary to mention here that the account that was opened with the Opposite Parties by the complainant belonged to a special category named as Krishi Current Account – Business Account for Agri Based Businesses.  As per Ann.R-2 the features of this particular type of account were in relation to only & only agri based businesses and the type of such businesses are listed under the Heading – Target Segment.  There are as many as seven different categories of businesses, which qualified to be benefited by this particular scheme.  The said documents Ann.R-2 also explains the background of this particular current account related to agricultural activities and discloses that the need for such tailored account was necessitated due to the requirements of biannual agricultural activities of the farmers and the requirements of such business enterprises, which were heavily dependent upon the requirements of agricultural inputs as well as the produce of different agricultural cycles (Rabi & Kharif).  

 

9]       The process of opening of such account also involved a background check of the person seeking to open such current account and the same is confirmed from document Ann.R-7, which discloses that the official of the OPs one Mr.Veer Devender Singh, whose signatures are found appended on Ann.R-7 (Page No.1 & 3) was responsible to personally visit and verify the complainant’s address and the antecedents of the agricultural related business activity, which he was engaged in, as mentioned in his account opening form and only after finding such details to be true, a positive field verification report was tendered before opening of such account and the Opposite Parties had heavily relied upon this Field Verification Report.

 

10]      Unfortunately, the official of the Opposite Parties responsible for Field Verification had tendered a botched-up report as the complainant was neither engaged in any agricultural based business activity and was only 20 years old and as per the Current Account Form Ann.R-1, his Annual Turn Over was quoted as upto 1 Crore.  Unfortunately, as there was no mention of particular agricultural product, which the complainant dealt in, the address from which such business activity was being run and the absence of details of inventory of such product with the complainant clearly indicates that the Field Investigation Officer of the Opposite Parties Mr.Veer Devender Singh, tendered a false report, as the complainant did not qualify to open an account under the said scheme and the Opposite Parties failed to investigate the matter after the receipt of legal notice from the side of the Opposite Parties, only goes on to prove that it was a deliberate act on the part of the Opposite Parties to open such account, for which the complainant did not qualify, for the reasons best known to themselves alone.  Furthermore, the act of the Opposite Parties in receiving Rs.2000/- as deposit and adjusting the same against the penalty for not maintaining minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- and not looking into the matter, after it was reported by the complainant and even after having received the caution through the legal notice dated 12.11.2014, amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The Opposite Parties took advantage of the innocence of the complainant, who is a simple village boy, in order to boost or show the spread of their reach in rural and semi-rural areas, and extent such a facility for which the complainant was neither qualified nor had the wherewithal for such business activity for which the Opposite Parties had opened a current account. 

 

11]     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

[a]      To reverse the debit entry of Rs.2000/- in the account of the complainant;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

[c]     To pay Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

9^th March, 2016                                                           

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER