By Smt. Beena. M, Member:
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The Complainant is an account holder of the Opposite Party bank. Whereas, from 16.03.2019 to 16.11.2020, the Opposite Party have illegally deducted an amount of Rs.3,92,925.66/- towards the service charge and extra charge from the account of the Complainant, which is violation of the Reserve Bank’s rule. The Complainant has complained to the Opposite Party about the same and based on this, the Opposite Party and employees of the Opposite Party have informed through phone that the extra amount which has been taken in excess could be deposited back into the account of the Complainant. But, when the Complainant went to complained about the above amount not being returned to the account, the Opposite Party and employees behaved very badly and demoralizing manner in front of other customers. Then even when he went to close the account, the Opposite Party mentally distressed the Complainant and did not close the account. This act of Opposite Party causes great financial difficulties and mental stress. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Opposite Party filed version admitted that the Complainant was an account holder of the Opposite Party Bank. The Opposite Party stated that an amount of Rs.3,92,925.66 was deducted as per schedule of charges value-based schemes and it was started with effect from 16/03/2019 onwards and he has not acted against the law of Reserve Bank and has acted as per law only. It is submitted that the above Complainant has made several transactions beyond the limit of service charges. The complainant has opened an account under Business Previlage (CABPL) Scheme where by he has to maintain a minimum average i.e., monthly average balance of Rs.5,00,000/- which is metro urban and Rs.2,50,000/- which is semi urban. But he has made several transactions beyond the limit. So, the charges were extracted. If the amount exceeds the limit of average minimum amount of Rs 3,500/- will be charged as per the terms and conditions of the account. For CASEL (Business select) the free limit would be 12 times the MAB (Monthly Average Balance) of the current month. However minimum cash deposit limit would be Rs.6,00,000/- and maximum possible cash deposit would be 50 lakhs for CASEL. Maximum Non-Home Branch Cash Deposit/ withdrawal per day shall be Rs.1 lakh. Maximum Third-party deposit/withdrawal up to Rs.50,000 per day. Beyond thus the cash transactions carried out yet the discretion of branch head where the cash is being deposited/ withdrawn. Maximum Non home Branch cash withdrawal per month would be 3 lakhs (CAADY) that is Business Advantage 6 lakhs (CASEL) – Business Select, Rs.12 lakhs (CABCA), Business Classic, 25 lakhs (CABPL) – Business Previlage, Rs.60 lakhs (CACHI) Channel One and unlimited (CAC50), Club 50. Beyond this cash may be withdrawn at the discretion of the Branch Head where cash is being withdrawn. The Complainant was not regular in maintain the minimum average amount and had being deposited amounts more than the allowed monthly average balance. The Opposite Party had informed of the irregularities many times the Complainant was neither keeping the minimum monthly average, nor depositing the amount as per the allowable multiples. So, charges were levied for not keeping average monthly balance and for depositing amount exceeding the limits. So, the Opposite Party has acted as per the rules and terms and times of the bank. The Opposite Party has not charged any excess amount from the Complainant. So, there was no unfair trade practice and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and has not charged extra charges against the law and service charge and extra charges are not totally not correct. The Opposite party has charged as per the terms and conditions of value based schemes. All other allegations stated by the Complainant are false and the Opposite Party denies also. The Opposite Party has not acted against any assurance made to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has acted as per the terms and conditions applicable to the schedule of the charge current accounts, i.e., value based schemes. So, the charges were withdrawn due to charges for non maintenance of the Complainant. So, this Opposite Party is not liable to refund the service charge as stated by the Complainant. The allegation that the Opposite Party has charges excess service charge from the account of the Complainant is also totally not correct. The Opposite Party is not liable to repay the service charges as claimed by the Complainant. The above Complainant has filed the complaint, the additional financial benefits from the Opposite Party. The amount service charge amount is happened due to Complainant. So, there is no bona fides in the allegation stated by the Complainant in the complaint. Therefore, the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the complaint.
4. The Complainant filed proof affidavit and examined PW1 and the documents produced marked as Ext.A1 to A3. On the other hand, the branch manager of Opposite Party bank examined as OPW1 and documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to B3. Marking of Ext.B1 was objected on the ground that the document contains no seal or signature and computer generated document. Ext B2 was objected because it was a photocopy and also not legible. Ext B3 document also objected. So all these documents marked as subject to proof.
5. Points for consideration are :-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite
Party?
2. If so, what relief the Complainant is entitled for?
6. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant is having a current account with Opposite Party. It is further not in dispute that the Opposite Party bank had deducted amount from the account of Complainant under the head consolidated charges and service charge. The Complainant had disputed the deduction of the charges saying illegal one, but the Opposite Party said that the same have been charged legally according to the terms and conditions of the bank. As per the evidence of the Complainant total amount of Rs.3,92,925.66/- has been deducted from its account under the head consolidated charges and service tax. Here, the documents produced by the Opposite Party not considered since it was marked as subject to proof. Though the documents is produced by the Opposite Party through OPW1 the Complainant opposed the marking of the documents since the documents are photo copies and not legible. At the time of re examination the OPW1, he admitted that he would produce the original document. But the Opposite Party is failed to produce the original/legible copies of documents marked as subject to proof, therefore we are not considering that document. In these circumstances, it can be held that the Opposite Party has a legal obligation to return the amount deducted from the account of the Complainant. So based on the above discussion, this Commission is of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part Opposite Party. Due to the illegal deductions of amount from the account of Complainant suffered mental agony as well as monetary loss for which the Opposite Party is liable to compensate.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Party is directed to repay an amount of Rs.3,92,925.66/- (Rupees Three Lakh Ninety- Two Thousand Nine Hundred Twenty Five and Sixty Six paise only) along with Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.8,000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand only) towards cost. The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry 8% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 21st day of June 2024.
Date of filing:24.11.2020.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:
PW1. Jis Thomas. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Siraj. T Bank Manager.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Copy of Statement of Account No.918020029660115 for the period (From 14.11.020 to 15.11.2020).
A2. Account Statement.
A3. Letter. dt:16.09.2019.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Copy of Statement of Account No.918020029660115 for the period (From 16.03.2019 to 16.03.2020).
B2. Copy of Schedule of charges.
B3. Copy of Charges for CA Account. (Two Page).
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
