For the complainant:- Sri S.K.Sahu, Advocate, Bhawanipatna
For the O.Ps:- Sri S.K.Mund, Advocate, Bhawanipatna
ORDER.
The present disputes arises out of the complaint petition filed by the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against the afore said O.Ps for non refund of
Rs. 1,27,272/- towards consolidated and cheque return charges in current account. The brief facts of the case summarized here under.
1. The complainant is an unemployed youth and for self employment doing retail garment business at Bhawanipatna to maintain his livelihood in the name and style of Fashion world. The complainant has a Current account bearing Account No. 812010200000204 with Axis bank since 2009 and operating regularly as the bonafied consumer of the bank. The complainant could know when he has verified the account it was found that the O.P. No.1 have charges Rs. 1,27,272/- from time to time in the name of different including cheque bounce charges and consolidated charges . On seeing the mistake the complainant visited the O.P. No.1 office and filed a complaint where the O.P. No.1 told that bank have charged amount according to bank rules and norms and assured that they would recheck and revert the entire amount once get approval from senior authority, but till date the amount has not been refunded to the complainant. The charges which has been levied is not as per the R.B.I guidelines . Hence this case filed before the forum for redressal of his grievance. The complainant prays the forum to direct the O.Ps to refund the consolidated charges a sum of Rs. 1,27,272/- and further prayed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and to pass such other relief as the court deems fit and proper for the best interest of justice.
2. On being noticed the O.Ps filed written version through their learned counsel and submitted that the case is not maintainable before the forum. The O.Ps contended that the complainant is not an unemployed rather he is a businessman and for his business purpose he has maintained a current account with the O.P. (bank). The O.Ps contended that at the time of opening of account the complainant had agreed to maintained his account as per the norms of the bank and the norms thereof was well conveyed to the complainant. The O.Ps also submits that inspite of such knowledge the complainant deliberately misutilized the cheques issued by the O.P in his favour as such the O.P bank charged the complainant for such bouncing of cheques at different times. The O.Ps submits that the bank is scheduled bank and functions all over india and abroad as per the norms of R.B.I. It informs every detail of account to its customers and in such process it has conveyed the complainant on each deduction charges either for bouncing of cheques for non maintenance of minimum deposit in its account. The O.Ps further submits that once the complainant had appeared before it and on his complaint the O.P. No.1 had verified the account and also allowed some reversal of charges which were permissible as per banking norms to which the complainant acknowledged but as the remaining charges were genuine it could not be reversed and being aggrieved the complainant has come up with a colorable story. The account opening form as submitted by the O.P. categorically proves that the complainant had agreed to comply with the norms of the bank and bank norm prescribes certain charges for non maintenance of minimum deposit and so also the bank has authority to deduct charges for bouncing of cheques. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency of services from the side of the O.Ps and the complainant has failed to establish any loss caused to him due to O.P. With such pleas the O.Ps pray for dismissal of complaint petition with cost.
The O.Ps appeared and filed their counter. Arguments from the learned counsels for both the parties heard. Perused the record, documents, written argument, citation filed by both the parties.
The learned counsels for both the parties vehemently advanced arguments touching the points both on the facts as well as on law.
FINDINGS.
3. The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer? The O.P. No.1 contends that the complainant is not a consumer in view of the fact that so far the relationship between him and the O.P. No.1 Bank has not developed to that of a “Customer and Banker “. It is on this score this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for a consumer dispute. However Section 2(1)© (iii) of the C.P. Act lays down that complaint means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect. In the instant case the complainant has agreed to hire and avail of the services of the O.P. No.1 Bank on payment of consideration , viz rate of interest maintaining minimum average balance in current account of the complainant. This is corollary to Section 2(1) (o) of the Act which defines “ Service” of any description which is made available to potential users and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy and so on and so forth. So according to the provisions of section 2(i) © (iii) and section 2(1) (o) of the C.P. Act the right of the complainant as a consumer can not be ignored. Hence complaint admitted.
It is held and reported in C.P.R. – 2009 (1) page No. 164 the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi observed after amendment by the Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 2002 (62 of 2002), Section 2(1)(d), 12 & 17- Consumer- Person excluded who availed services for commercial purpose was included in definition only by Amendment Act of 2002.
On perusal of the written version filed by the learned counsel for the complainant it is revealed that the complainant is an unemployed youth and for self employment doing retail garments business in the name and style of fashion world at Bhawanipatna. The complainant has a current with axis bank bearing account No. 812010200000204 since 2009 and operating the account as a bonafide customer of the bank. The complainant could know when he had verified the account and found that the O.P No.1 has charged Rs. 1,27,272/- from time time in the name of different charges including cheque bounce charges and non maintenance of minimum average balance in the account and when the complainant put forth his grievance before the O.P. No.1 assured the complainant to revert the entire amount after rechecking and getting approval from the authority but the O.P.No.1 as well as the O.P. No.2 have neglected the complainant and remained silent. The charges which have been levied to the complainant is not as per the guide lines of R.B.I. Further the R.B.I. has announced in his bi-monthly policy statement for the year 2014-15, banks must not punish non-maintenance of minimum balance and also banks should not take undue advantage of customers difficulties or in attention. The learned counsel for the O.Ps has mentioned in their written argument that in a case of Archana M.Kamath Vrs. Canara Bank & another that a complainant is not a consumer if his account is a current account. It is observed that the above citation has not whispered a single word that current account is coming under commercial purpose and the current account holder is not a consumer rather it has given emphasis in that judgement that R.B.I. clearly indicates that the processing charges of cheques payable by the banks to the R.B.I were not be passed on to the customer. The complainant in his written argument para-6 argued the complainant was always maintaining minimum average balance in his account and for that the complainant and the bank entered into lien to his current account and the lien amount was Rs. 11,612.73 . So that the current account was always covered the minimum average balance and whatever the charges have been levied to the complainant is quite illegal and the same may be refunded to the complainant. The complainant in last para of the written argument argued that an amount of Rs.10,137/- has been reverted to the account of the complainant when the complainant brought it to the notice of the O.P. No.1 that the charges i.e. the service charges and other charges deducted from the account of the complainant which has been reflected in the written version of the O.Ps in para-7. The complainant argued the O.Ps have deducted the charges such as non-maintenance of average balance in the account and charges of dishonor of cheques which has been deducted from the account of the complainant is quite illegal and not as per the guidelines of R.B.I as such the deduction amount of Rs. 1,27,272/- to be refunded to the complainant.
On perusal of the written version filed by the learned counsel for the O.Ps it is revealed that the O.Ps contended that the complainant is not an unemployed rather he is a businessman and for his business purpose he has maintained a current account with the O.P. (bank). The O.Ps contended that at the time of opening of account the complainant had agreed to maintained his account as per the norms of the bank and the norms thereof was well conveyed to the complainant. The O.Ps also submits that inspite of such knowledge the complainant deliberately misutilized the cheques issued by the O.P in his favour as such the O.P bank charged the complainant for such bouncing of cheques at different times. The O.Ps submits that the bank is scheduled bank and functions all over india and abroad as per the norms of R.B.I. It informs every detail of account to its customers and in such process it has conveyed the complainant on each deduction charges either for bouncing of cheques for non maintenance of minimum deposit in its account. The O.Ps further submits that once the complainant had appeared before it and on his complaint the O.P. No.1 had verified the account and also allowed some reversal of charges which were permissible as per banking norms to which the complainant acknowledged but as the remaining charges were genuine it could not be reversed and being aggrieved the complainant has come up with a colorable story. The account opening form as submitted by the O.P. categorically proves that the complainant had agreed to comply with the norms of the bank and bank norm prescribes certain charges for non maintenance of minimum deposit and so also the bank has authority to deduct charges for bouncing of cheques. The complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency of services from the side of the O.Ps and the complainant has failed to establish any loss caused to him due to O.P.
The learned counsel for the complainant filed citation in connection with this case reported in 2003 (1) C.P.R – 296, and Civil appeal No.14562 – 14563 of 1996 Archana M.Kamath Vrs. Canara Bank verdict delivered on 6.2.2003 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where in at para No.7 the bench observed the instruction of the R.B.I were that the processing charges of cheque payable by the banks to the R.B.I were not to be passed on to the customers.
On perusal of the documents filed by both the parties and going through the argument advanced by their respective counsel we found that the complainant is a bonafide customers of the O.P. bank and as such the complainant is entitle to the service provided by the O.P. bank. The complainant is allowed to open a Current account by the O.P. with terms and condition of an agreement. One of the agreement is that the complainant will maintain as minimum average balance in his current account. In the instant case the O.P. Bank had charged an amount of Rs.1,27,272/- to the complainant account due to failure of maintaining minimum average amount in the current account and also for bouncing of cheques. The complainant contended that he approached the Branch Manager of the Bank with his grievance and the O.P. bank assured him to roll back the entire amount but had not done the same till filing of this complaint. On perusal of the documents, it is found that the O.P. had charged Rs.387.00 for each return of cheque and consolidated charged on various dates for not maintaining minimum average balance in the alleged current account of the complainant. The O.P. bank insisted that they have charged the penalty as per the bank guide line and agreement and as such there is no deficiency of service from their side. On perusal of the account slip as agreed by the O.P. they have reversed Rs. 2157.31 on 29.6.2013 and Rs.948.88 on Dt. 14.5.2011. But the O.P. bank is silent as to why and on which point of agreement they reversed the same and did not reverse the other amount. The O.P. contended that at the time of opening the account the detail of scheduled charge are given to the complainant along with ‘Welcome’ kit further the scheduled charges for various service are exhibited in the bank notice board to which the complainant is aware of . It is found that the complainant has been charged for dishonor of cheques for 164 times as per the averment of the O.P. The O.P. has completely denied the claim of the complainant on his written version and argument on the grounds of the norms of the bank. The O.P. had relied on the (1) Account statement (2) Account opening form (3) E- mail complaint of the complainant and other documents. The O.P. bank also submitted a written argument through their counsel.
4. We observed the O.P. has charged Rs. 387.00 towards cheque bounce per each cheque which were higher side and abnormal. For the best interest of natural justice we feel as per R.B.I. guide lines in respect of Nationalized Bank charges should be calculated and balance amount to be refunded to the complainant.
Further we observed the complainant always maintaining minimum average balance in his account and for that the complainant and the bank had entered into lien to his current account and the lien amount is Rs.11,612.73 which is marked as annexure-I. So deduction of consolidated charges from the current account of the complainant by the bank is not proper.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed. ORDER.
5. In the result with these observations, findings, discussions the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest against the O.Ps.
The O.Ps are ordered to refund the consolidated charges a sum of Rs.94,486.72 to the complainant which deducted from the current account No. 812010200000204 for the period from 29.6.2009 to 12.7.2014.
Further the O.Ps are ordered to comply the above directions mentioned in para-4 of the findings within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to file execution proceeding as laid down in the C.P.Act for realization of the same from the O.Ps. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Dictated and corrected by me
Pronounced on this 25th. day of November, 2016.
Member. Member. President
Documents relied upon:-
Documents relied upon:-
By the complainant.
1.Xerox copies of the account statement of current account No. 812010200000204 for the period from 5.6.2009 to 28.7.2014.
2.Grievance petition Dt. 16.9.2014
3.Reply letter through E-Mail dt. 16.10.2014
4.Statement of account issued by the O.P. where the lien amount mentioned Rs.11,612.73
By the O.P
- Xerox copies of current account charges schedule w.e.f 15.12.2012 = 2 sheets.
- Dealing with incidents of frequent dishonor of cheques= 4 sheets.
- Cheque returns details from 5.6.2009 to 8.8.2014 = 5 sheets.
- Different charges for account No. 812010200000204 of fashion world.
- Schedule of charges at the time of account opening= 2 sheets.
- Schedule of charges for 2015= 2 sheets.
- Charge reversal benefit given to customers= 1 sheet.
- Account opening from with scheme code CAADV= 8 sheets.
- Business advantage current account schedule of charges= 2 sheets.
- Schedule of charges for normal business advantage for 2012 = 2 sheets.
- Revised schedule of charges for normal business advantage= 2 sheets.
- Revised schedule of charges for normal business advantage current year= two sheets.
PRESIDENT.
