Order-15.
Date-23/03/2017.
Shri Kamal De, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The case of the complainant, in short, is that he opened a Priority Savings Bank Account Memo No. 161010100114783 with the OP Bank on 20-11-2016. On 09-03-2009, the complainant vide a letter requested the OP Bank to convert the account from Priority Savings to normal Savings Account. OP Bank despite receipt of letter dated 09-03-2009 did not convert the said Priority Account into normal Savings Account. The complainant had also opened a FD Account being No.911040034118455 on 06-07-20911 with the OP for one term and renewed the same for another one year. The said FD finally got matured on 07-09-2013. The complainant, thereafter, issued a cheque being No.224616 dated 30-09-2013 to his son drawn on OP Bank as aforesaid amounting to Rs.62,124/- to credit it on his Son’s account No.31588326126 lying with SBI, Pottery Road Area Branch, Kolkata and on 01-10-2015 the complainant came to know from his son that the cheque got returned due to insufficient fund. The complainant updated the bank account pass book of the OP Bank and came to know that the cheque was returned due to debit of consolidated charges of Rs.3,738-43 and Service Tax of Rs.462-07 and also deducted Rs.393-26 towards inward clearing charges for returned cheque No.224616. It is alleged that the OP deducted consolidated charges and service tax from the complainant’s account without any intimation to the complainant. The complainant vide e-mail dated 05-11-2013 wanted to know from the OP the reason for such deduction and OP gave some unsatisfactory reply in which they explained that the charges are deducted for 5 quarters from July, 2012 to September, 2013 @750/- and service charge of Rs.92-70 for each quarter for non-maintenance of the average quarterly balance. The complainant has alleged unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank. Hence, this case.
OP Bank has contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the case is not maintainable in its present form and prayer and is also barred by limitation under C.P. Act. It is stated by the OP that the purported letter annexed as P in the petition of complaint is contradictory and nowhere in the petition it is stated to convert the account into normal Savings Account from priority banking and it is also stated that the purported Annexure – C shows that an amount of Rs.62,124/- was credited in the account of the complainant being the closure proceeds of the FD account. The complainant had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.62,124/- but the said cheque was dishonoured for insufficient fund in the account. It is stated that the complainant is a Priority Account Holder and had complete knowledge about the maintenance of the minimum balance and subsequent charges that may incur for non-maintenance of minimum balance. It is stated that the complainant has not maintained average quarterly balance as required by the OP Bank. It is also stated that the complaint signed declaration at the time of opening the balance. It is also stated that the bank provides all details of schedule of charges and other documents in a separate welcome kit. The complainant has received the same and such terms and conditions were well within his knowledge. This OP has denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and has prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the case is barred by limitation?
- Whether OP Bank is deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Whether the OP Bank has indulged in unfair trade practice?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
We take up all the issues together for discussion for the sake of brevity and convenience.
We have travelled over the documents on record i.e. Xerox copy of the front page of account no.1610100114783, Xerox copy of the letter dated 09-03-2009 by the complainant to the OP Bank, Xerox copies of pass book, Xerox copy of the email dated 05-11-2013 in between the parties and other documents on record.
We find that the fixed deposit was matured on 07-09-2013, the complainant had issued the cheque being No.224616 dated 30-09-2013 drawn on Axis Bank for crediting the amount of Rs.62,124/- into his son’s account being No.31588326126 on SBI, Pottery Road Area Branch, Kolkata and it was also bounced on 30-09-2013 for the reason ‘fund insufficient’. So, the whole episode took place way back on 30-09-2013. Section 24A of C.P. Act envisages.-
“24A.Limitation Period .-
(1) The District Forum, the State commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (12), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.”
It appears that the instant case has been filed on 16-09-2016. The complainant has not also filed any petition of condonation of delay at the time of filing the complaint. We think that the case is hopelessly barred by limitation.
We also find that complainant wrote a letter to OP Bank stating “I have chosen to opt out of priority banking and a normal Axis Bank debit card may be issued to me”. The language of the letter to our mind is not directory on nature and there is no clear cut direction to convert the priority banking into normal Axis Ban’s Savings Bank Account. Among the documents on record, we find that the banking authority wrote a letter to the complainant for applying for a normal Axis Bank debit card but complainant did not take any positive step in this regard. Moreover, complainant has not agitated ever the matter any quarters subsequently that his Priority Account is not converted into normal savings account. Moreover, we find that the complainant was a priority account holder and supposed to have complete knowledge about the maintenance of minimum balance and subsequent ancillary charges that may incur for non-maintenance of minimum balance. We also find that the complainant did not maintain average minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- as is required by the OP Bank. It is also obvious that complainant opened the account signing declaration regarding documents and such condition. We find that average quarterly balance maintained by the complainant in his account has been ranging to Rs.2527.13 to ‘Nil’ in the last quarters from July, 2012 to September, 2013. Thus the AQB Charges of Rs.4213-50 (i.e. Rs.750+ Service charges Rs.92-70 each for quarters ending September, 2012 to September, 2013) have been levied to the account of the complainant. We find that OP Bank has also clarified the position to the complainant vide email dated November 5, 2013 at 7.55 p.m. The complainant slept over the matter and moved to this Forum after expiry of the statutory period of limitation as envisaged under C.P. Act. We are afraid we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank or any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank.
These issues are thus answered in negative as against the complainant.
Consequently, the case merits no success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Bank.
