In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed by the complainant against the opposite party regarding deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

The factual matrix of the case is that :-

          The complainant has opened a current bank account vide Account No. 909020041701922 in the Axis Bank of Nuapada Branch since 2010 and maintaining the minimum balance of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) as per the Bank rule and he has also pays the service charges as per the demand of the opposite party.  Thereafter the bank authority has been penalizing the complainant in want of maintenance of minimum balance and the opposite party has already deducted the approximate amount of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) in differents occasion on the back and behind and without any intimation to the complainant and the complainant has protested on different time and dates of the said arbitral and illegal act of appropriation of money but there was no response from the side of the opposite party.  Further the complainant submitted that when the account was opened at that time there was no such terms and conditions to maintain the minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) however the minimum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand) was maintained by the complainant as per the terms and conditions as on the date of the opening of the said current account.  Thereafter the complainant lodged a written complaint before opposite party on different dates i.e. 18.03.2016, 04.08.2016 & 23.05.2017 on the said illegal deduction of Rs. 22,000/- but the opposite party did not respond the same for which the complainant suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment due to unfair trade practice by the opposite party and as such the complainant claim relief’s as prayed for.  The complainant has filed the documents in support of their claim in this case.

1)     Attested true copy of Statement of Account No. 909020041701922 for the period from 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 as (Annexure-1).

2)    Attested true copy of Statement of Account No. 909020041701922 for the period from 01.04.2015 to 15.03.2016 as (Annexure-2).

3)    Attested true copy of Statement of Account No. 909020041701922 for the period from 01.01.2016 to 28.07.2016 as (Annexure-3).

4)    Attested true copy of protest application dated 18.03.2016 as (Annexure-4).

5)    Attested true copy of protest application dated 04.08.2016 as (Annexure-5).

6)    Attested true copy of protest application dated 23.05.2017 as (Annexure-6).

          Being noticed, opposite party appeared through their advocate and filed written version and denied the allegations of complaint petition filed by the complainant in this case except Paragraph No. 2.

          In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :-

I)             Is there any cause of action  ?

II)           Whether the case is barred by limitation  ?

III)          Whether any negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  on the part of opposite party  ?

IV)         To what relief, the complainant is entitled to  ?

Issue No. I  to III.

          Since, the issues are very much linked up with each other, those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings.

On perusal of case records, it is found that the complainant is an account holder of Axis Bank, Nuapada (opposite party) vide Account No. 909020041701922 and running the account since 2010 and maintaining the minimum balance of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) as per the bank rule and he also pays the service charges as per demand of opposite party and it is admitted by the O.P. in their written version.  But the opposite party has penalized the complainant in want of maintenance and minimum balance and he deducted of Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) for different occasion on the back and behind and without any intimation to the complainant.

          Further it is seen that the complainant has protested the said arbitral and illegal act before the opposite party in different time and dates as per Annexure - 4 to 6 which are received by the opposite party  but the opposite party did not heed the same which is squarely absurd by him. 

          In such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum.

          But the advocate for opposite party has argued and taken a plea that as per Annexure – 1 to 3 (Statement of Accounts) filed by the complainant that he has failed to maintain the minimum balance in his account and as such as per terms and conditions laid down in the account opening form for current account in the bank the opposite party has levied the amounts from the account of complainant and penalized for non-maintenance of minimum balance.

           Here, as per verification of documents i.e. Annexure – 1 to 3, it is clear crystal that the complainant has maintained the minimum balance in his account.

          But it is seen that without any intimation or any reason, the opposite party has levied the amount month wise i.e. 22.8.2015 to 16.07.2016 from the account of complainant as penalty for non-maintenance of minimum balance is illegal and arbitrary.

          In another factual aspect is that when the account was opened and at that time there was no such terms and conditions to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) instead of     Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand).

          Further it is seen that the opposite party has never informed the complainant in any occasion that the minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) is to be maintained in the said current account and he arbitrarily charged the penalty for non maintenance of minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) in the account is a clear instance of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          So here, the plea of opposite party is unbelievable and it is evasive in absence of documents.

          In further Advocate for opposite party has argued and taken an another plea that the documents filed by the complainant in court at a belated stage and there is no pleading on the same from the side of complainant and the case is beyond limitation.  But we perused the documents and found that the documents filed by the advocate for complainant are public documents and it is related in their bank account and the account number is already pleaded in this case and as such the complainant has right to file the aforesaid documents and it is necessary for proper adjudication of this case. 

          So far as the point of limitation, it is seen that the complainant gave their written complaint in time before the opposite party as per Annexure – 4 to 6 and as such the complaint of complainant is within the limitation and there is cause of action.

          Here, the Consumer Protection Act is a social legislation and there is need to strike down such practices and need to give proper redressal to the consumers.

          So, from the perusal of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 applied to all type of goods, and all type of services availed by the consumer against consideration paid, or promised.  Section 1(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is of wide connotation.

          Supporting to the above findings, we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES . . Vrs . . .  BALBIR SINGH “that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken into consideration while compensating him in the loss or injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency of service of the service provider.

          In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law.

          Perused the documents of complainant, we found that the case of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration.

          In the above case, advocate for complainant as well as advocate for opposite party have argued in support of their claim.

          Here, we assessed that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party and as such it is the duty of opposite party to provide proper service and proper information to the complainant in time.  But here, opposite party has failed to do the same in this case.

          Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency in service by the opposite party as not attending properly to the grievance of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony, due to negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party.

          So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency of service by the opposite party.  Thus opposite party is liable for deficiency in service.

          Accordingly, the issues answered and goes in favour of the complainant.

Issue No. IV.

          It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case.  Hence, order.

                                      O R D E R.

          In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 39 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as below :-

1)         We direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees twenty two thousand) only to the complainant along with interest @ Rs. 9% per annum from 18.03.2016 till payment within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

2)         We further direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards harassment and mental agony and further pay as Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only towards litigation cost within 30 (thirty) days from the date of order.

3)          Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law.

Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 31st   day of January  2020.