Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/41/2018

M/s Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau, Rep. by its Sole proprietor, N.C.S.M.Prasad, S/o. Late N.Subbarao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

14 Dec 2018

ORDER

Filing Date: 15.03.2018

Order Date:14.12.2018

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.41/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

M/s. Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau,

Rep. by its sole proprietor Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad,

Aged 54 years,

S/o. late. N.Subbarao,

D.No.1-5-581, Balaji Colony,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

The Branch Manager,

Andhra Bank,

Balaji Colony Branch,

Tirupati – 517 502.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 05.12.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri. N.C.S.M.Prasad, party-in-person for complainant, and Sri.G.Gajendra, counel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12 of C.P.Act 1986, with the following allegations:

            2.  The complainant is a consumer within the definition of C.P.Act, as he opened a current account in the name of M/s.Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau, which is a non-commercial organization, under sole proprietary concern of the complainant bearing account No.003311100002430 on 30.12.2016, by depositing Rs.5,000/- as initial deposit with the opposite party bank. It was noticed from the passbook of current account that a sum of Rs.92/- was debited twice towards ledger folio charges on 26.03.2017 and 26.06.2017 respectively, and further a sum of Rs.94/- was also debited twice on 23.09.2017 and 23.12.2017 towards ledger folio charges. The reason for difference in ledger folio charges is secrecy maintained by the bank, which is not disclosed to the customers. Apart from that a sum of Rs.17/- was debited twice towards SMS charges on 11.03.2017 and 16.06.2017 respectively, and also an amount of Rs.18/- was debited twice towards SMS charges on 18.09.2017 and 17.12.2017 respectively. The reason for difference in SMS charges is also not disclosed to the customers. As per the information provided by the Central Public Information Officer and Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Tirupati, under RTI Act 2005, and also as per the service charges displayed in the bank’s website, if there are no entries in the accounts, the ledger folio charges shall not be levied. As per the said rule, the ledger folio charges ought not to have been debited from his account, since there are no transactions in the said current account. The complainant issued two notices dt:26.10.2017 and 15.02.2018 respectively to the opposite party bank, but there was no response from the bank. In view of the above said facts, the opposite party acted negligently, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part and therefore the complainant is entitled for refund of entire amount debited from his account i.e. Rs.442/-. Further the complainant is also entitled for the compensation of Rs.90,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, besides litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, the complaint. 

            3. The opposite party put in appearance and filed written version contending as follows – At the outset, the complaint averments are denied. The complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act. It is admitted that complainant opened a current account in the name and style of  M/s.Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau, which is proprietary concern of the complainant bearing account No.003311100002430 on 30.12.2016 by depositing Rs.5,000/- as initial deposit with the opposite party bank. But it is denied that the said marriage bureau is a non-commercial organization and that no transactions were made in the current account. It is also admitted that the current account passbook shows that Rs.92/- was debited twice on 26.03.2017 and 26.06.2017, and a sum of Rs.94/- was debited twice on 23.09.2017 and 23.12.2017 towards ledger folio charges, but it is denied that the bank has not disclosed the same to the customers and kept it as a secret. It is also admitted that Rs.17/- was deposited twice on 10.03.2017 and 16.06.2017 respectively and further a sum of Rs.18/- was also debited twice towards SMS charges on 18.09.2017 and 17.12.2017 respectively. But the allegations that the bank has kept it as a secret about the hike in SMS charges from Rs.17/- to Rs.18/-, by not informing to the customers is denied. The allegations in para.6 of the complaint that as per the information provided by the Central Public Information Officer and Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Tirupati, under RTI Act 2005, if there are no entries in the account of the customer, the ledger folio charges are not to be levied is not correct. Similarly, the allegations in paras.8 and 10 of the complaint are denied. The complaint is barred by limitation. As per the statement of account of the complainant, there are debit entries (mobile alert charges), and the difference in folio charges is due to implementation of GST by the Government from 01.07.2017, which is 18%. The bank has issued circular No.77 dt:22.06.2017. Hence, the bank is not maintaining secrecy. All the charges for different services rendered by the bank are available in Andhra Bank website “andhrabank.in”. As per circular No.369 dt:11.12.2013 and information available in the website, it is clearly mentioned that if there are no entries, charges will not be levied. But in the instant case, there is one debit entry of SMS charges. The complainant is ex-bank employee and habituated in filing complaints against the bank on flimsy grounds. On his complaint, the zonal office asked the opposite party to reverse the folio charges on 04.04.2018, even though the debit entries are made as per rules, in order to avoid harassment from the complainant. But not satisfied with the reversal of debit entries, the complainant filed this complaint before the Forum without valid reasons. The bank issued reply notice dt:25.09.2017 to the complainant for his notice dt:11.09.2017. The entries in the passbook of the complainant are computerized and not manual entries. The question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank, therefore, does not arise. The complainant unnecessarily filed this complaint by making false allegations against the bank for wrongful gain. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

            4.  Complainant filed chief evidence affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of opposite party bank, the Chief Manager, Y.Chandrasekhar Reddy, fled chief evidence affidavit and marked Exs.B1 to B6 in support of their case.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party bank? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            6.  Point:-  The admitted facts are like this – The complainant is a proprietor of M/s. Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau, which is registered one, and that a current account bearing No. 003311100002430 under the said marriage bureau is with the opposite party bank. There are debit entries pertaining to ledger folio charges in the said account.

            7.  The contention of the complainant is that the debit entries shown in the statement of account pertaining to the current account of the complainant are made illegal by the opposite party bank, and that the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. The fact that legal notice issued by the complainant has been admitted by the bank. The opposite party bank placed reliance on Circular No.77 dt:22.06.2017 and Circular No.369 dt:11.12.2013 in support of their contention that the ledger folio charges have to be increased on account of levying of GST. According to the complainant when there are no transactions in the current account, there is no question of levying ledger folio charges, but the opposite party bank unnecessarily debited Rs.92/- twice and Rs.94/- twice, as per debit entries shown in the statement of account, which is illegal.

            8.  Ex.A1 is show cause notice dt:26.10.2017 issued to opposite party bank by the complainant wherein he alleged that ledger folio charges are not to be levied, if there are no entries in the account. Ex.A2 is also legal notice issued by the complainant on 15.02.2018 to the Branch Manager of opposite party bank, making same allegations. In Ex.A2 the complainant demanded to refund entire ledger folio charges of Rs.372/- debited to his account illegally for the last one year and also demanded return of entire SMS charges of Rs.70/- debited to the said account and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from 26.03.2017 onwards. There is no dispute that the notices were received by the opposite party bank. Ex.A3 is photocopy of front page of passbook which shows that that the complainant is having current account in the opposite party bank, which is not disputed. Ex.A4 is letter addressed to complainant by the Central Public Information Officer and Zonal Manger furnishing Circular No.311 dt:30.11.2010, wherein different service charges on basic banking services levied by the bank is mentioned. Ex.A5 is statement of account showing debit entries.

            9.  In order to show that the service charges were increased after the imposition of GST, the bank has filed Ex.B1 Circular No. 77 dt:22.06.2017. Ex.B2 is Circular No. 369 dt:11.12.2013 issued by the bank revising the service charges with effect from 15.04.2014. Ex.B3 is letter addressed by the Chief Manager, opposite party bank to complainant, clarifying the debit entries made by the bank. It is stated that all the charges are specified in core banking software of the bank and system will automatically debit the account for the charges prescribed. Bank has already published the applicable service charges for various banking services in the online portal of the bank, and advised the complainant to look into Andhra Bank Portal by entering “andhrabank.co.in” in Google and in the home page, one can find service charges tab in which 31^st point will clarify the doubts expressed by the complainant. Ex.B4 is statement of account of complainant wherein debit entries are made from 30.12.2016 to 27.06.2018, the complainant has not disputed Ex.B4. Ex.B5 is registration certificate pertaining to M/s. Pavitrabandham Marriage Bureau, which is also not disputed. Ex.B6 is also statement of account of complainant, wherein debit entries are shown. The statement is pertaining to the period from 30.12.2016 to 04.04.2018.

            10.  As already stated by us, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that debit entries are made by the opposite party bank. The only question is whether the bank is justified in debiting certain amounts towards ledger service charges, even though there are no transactions in the particular account. As per the said Circular No.77 dt:22.06.2017, at page.2 at para.3(a) it is clearly mentioned that the CST and SGST all together has to be deducted at 18%. Further, there is a Circular No.369 dt:11.12.2013 and at page.3 at column.16 it reveals that charges on SMS alerts has to be charged Rs.60/- on all types of SMS alerts, as annual charges and levied on quarterly basis at Rs.15/- per quarter. It is seen from the documentary evidence that the bank has kept different charges levied for services in the bank portal and the said information is also furnished to the complainant. In respect of debit entries made in the complainant’s account, the Chief Manager of the Bank admitted at the time of arguments that the debit entries were reversed due to complaint given by the complainant earlier, but that is not correct procedure and it cannot be said that due to reversal of debit entries, what complainant says is correct. The fact remains that they are entitled to debit certain amounts for ledger folio charges and SMS charges as per circulars. There are certain SMS alerts in the current account of the complainant and each SMS alert is considered as transaction, as per the bank procedure and therefore the counsel for the opposite party bank contends that the debit entries made in the current account is as per rules and there is no question of deficiency in service on the part of the bank.

            11.   We have perused the circulars and we come to the conclusion that there is no substance in the arguments advanced by the complainant that the bank is not justified in making debit entries, by debiting certain amounts towards ledger folio charges. We therefore hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed.

            12.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No  costs.            

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 14^th day of December, 2018.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                         

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: N.C.S.M. Prasad (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Y. Chandrasekhar Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of Show Cause Notice, Dt: 26.10.2017 along with Postal Receipt & Acknowledgement Card, Dt: 30.10.2017.
	Office copy of Notice, Dt: 15.02.2018 along with Postal Receipt & Acknowledgement Card, Dt: 17.02.2018.
	Self attested photo copy of Andhra Bank Pass book bearing Current Account No.003311100002430 (M/s. PAVITRABANDHAM MARRIAGE BUREAU with the Andhra Bank, Balaji Colony Branch, Tirupati-517 502).
	True copy of Letter bearing No. Lr.No.0687/11/RTI/668, Dt: 24.07.2017   with circular issued by the Andhra Bank Zonal Office, Tirupati on ledger folio charges.
	Self attested copy of Andhra Bank Pass Book Entries.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Attested true copies of Circular vide bearing No.77, Ref.No.10/3, Dated: 22.06.2017 regarding Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act 2017- Implementation of Goods and Service Tax (GST) in Bank.
	Attested true copies of Circular vide bearing No.369, Ref.No.27/39, Dated: 11.12.2013 regarding Revision of Service Charges on Basic Banking Services.
	Photo copy of Reply Notice from Andhra Bank to Complainant. Dt: 25.09.2017.
	Attested true copy of Statement of Account bearing A/c. No.003311100002430 from 30.12.2016 to 27.08.2018.
	Original copy of Certificate of Registration of Establishment- Sec2(d) AND 4(2)), Labour Department, Andhra Pradesh for Registration Number(LIN): AP-10-84-001-0381522. Date of Issue: 30.12.2016. Registration valid till: 31.03.2019.
	True copy of Statement of Bank Account issued by Andhra Bank, Tirupati. Dt: 15.05.2018.

    

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-     

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

              

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.