Presented by:
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case:
This case has been filed U/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant has a current account running with the op bank at their hospital road, Chinsurah Branch and the complainant has requested the Bank personnel to close his current account there being no.9536070001126, they assured the complainant that it will be done and the complainant must not worry about it but till now the complainant is in the dark regarding the present status of the said current account and one funny morning of 12.08.2021 the complainant received an SMS stating that Rs.648.80/- is deducted from his savings account being no.95372200016686 which is lying with Canara Bank, 42 G.T.Road, Badabazar, Chandannagar, Hooghly. Then and there complainant rushed to the bank i.e. op no.2 and updated his passbook and from the updating it has been crystal clear to the complainant that Rs.648.80/- is deducted from his said savings account without his consent as well as knowledge and the complainant with utter shock contacted with some bank personnel there and asked why the amount has been deducted but he got no clear answer, instead he was advised to come again after few days and till then let them look into the matter and being a good consumer complainant again went to op no.2 bank and the bank personnel informed him that the amount of Rs.648.80/- is deducted may be as his current account closing charge but he has not given any written statement regarding this and asked complainant to contact to op no.1 branch i.e. Canara Bank, Hospital Road Branch, ;Chinsurah, Hooghly.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and pain along with harassment and to pay sum of Rs.100000/- for deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost
Defense Case:- The opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that the petitioner used to maintain his current account at op ;no.1 and savings a/c before op no.2. On 01.07.2021 petitioner was maintaining balance in his ;current a/c vide no.95363070001126, amounting Rs.5027.20 only. On 01.07.2021 petitioner issued cheque no.638941, dt.01.07.2021 for NEET to King Enterprise and requested closure of said current account. Accordingly op no.1 honoured the aforesaid cheque and transferred Rs.5027/- to the a/c of king enterprise vide ref. no.000000638941 and balance remained twenty paise only but as per circular of op no.1 bank required minimum balance based on average monthly balance for rural / semi Urban Rs.1000/- and Urban / Metro Rs.5000/- and charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance based on monthly balance is Rs.60/- per day (maximum of Rs.400/- per calendar month). That from the above discussion it is clear that petitioner was not maintaining minimum balance for which charges amounting Rs.471/- was payable by the petitioner furthermore Folio amount fixed for current account amounting Rs.148/- was due and SMS alert charges for current account, amounting Rs.30/- was due. In accordance with section 13 of the Insolvent Debtors Relief Act, 1728 the Banker has a right to set off against a particular debt for which the op bank adjusted the unpaid amount which the op bank adjusted the unpaid amount from the savings bank account vide no.95372200016686 standing in the name of the complainant, lying with op no.2.
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.
The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 have filed a joint evidence on affidavit which reiterates the averments of the written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties
Complainant and opposite parties have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.
Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.
From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue no.1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.
Issue no.2:
Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.
Issue nos. 3 & 4:
Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.
The specific case of the complainant is that on 12/8/21 on receipt of SMS regarding deduction from his savings bank account by O.P 2he was perplexed and rushed to the bank (O.P 2) wherefrom he came to know about deduction of Rs. 648.80/.Inspite of appearing before the bank the complainant could not ascertain the reason of such deduction and ultimately he approached the O.P 1 about the deduction of such amount for which a written letter was issued on 15/1/22 to the concerned O.Ps which ultimately did not produce any fruitful result giving rise to the instant proceeding . According to the complainant the acts of both the O.Ps are whimsical.
Both the O.Ps contests the case by filing written version and both the parties have submitted their respective arguments. From the arguments of the O.Ps it appears that Rs. 648.80/ was debited from the S.B account of the complainant and the reason therefore given therein which appears to be reasonable to mention wherein it is stated,” until and unless the current account’s credit balance is square off the O.P 1 have no opportunity to close the current bank account of the complainants requested by complainant.” The specific rule for deduction of the amount has also been referred therein stating,” the banker’s right of set off refers to the right of the bank to combine two or more of a customer’s accounts held with the bank, where one account has a credit balance and the other has debit balance in order to give a net position. In the instant case O.P 1 availed banker’s right of set off. That by doing this the O.P has not violated the consumer’s right…..”
By observations of legal right applicable to the banks the amount of Rs. 648.80/ has been deducted. This commission finds it reasonable to quote the relevant provision appearing in page 2 of the BNA of the O.Ps which runs as,” that account no. 95363070001126 as a credit balance of Rs. 648.80/ which has been adjusted by O.P 1 by deducting Rs. 648.80/ from savings account lying before O.P 2 by implementing banker’s right to set off in order to give a net position.”
In view of the facts and circumstances stated above the complainant appears to have not instituted a case wherein he appears to have any relief.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 61 of 2022 be and the same is dismissed on contest with no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
