The instant case has been initiated by the complainant U/S – 12 of C.P. Act,1986 against the Opposite Party claiming an amount of Rs. 14,707 /- including interest and compensation.

The fact of the case , in brief ,is that the Complainant is the Proprietor of Banik Traders, situated at Lenin Sarani, P.O. & P.S. Balurghat, Dist. Dakshin Dinajpur and opened one current account, bearing A/C No. 611001010050219 on 19.09.2018 to the O.P. Bank on condition that the said account is maintained for Rs.50,000/- as balance and the Complainant may do the RTGS and NEFT of Rs.50,00,000/- without charge. That in the said condition several transaction was made up to February 2019 without any charge. But in the month of March and April 2019, the Complainant noticed up to 24th April Rs.4,479.89/- for the month of April and Rs.5,649.07/- for the month of March were debited for as transaction charges. Thereafter, the Complainant immediately contacted with the accountant of the O.P.Bank for seeing transaction in the O.P.’s computer said “ your minimum Balance of Rs. 50,000/- is maintained. Then, the Complainant talked with the Head Office and also went to the O.P. Bank, where he was informed that the transaction month starts from16th of the existing month to 15^th of the next month. Hearing this, the Complainant became astonished because the same was never discussed prior to or after the opening of the account. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a complaint through speed post on 27.04.2019 to the O.P. Bank and the reply was same. 

On 08.05.2019 the Complainant lodged a complaint before the Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Dakshin Dinajpur at Balurghat but in vain. Thereafter, having no alternative the Complainant filed this case for relief as per prayer of the plaint.

Notice was duly served upon the opposite Party and after receiving the notice , the Opposite Party appeared before this commission and filed his written version.

By filing written version , the opposite Party denied the material allegation of the complainant  and submitted that the O.P.Bank introduced a new type of current account as a part of its business plan, commonly known as Union Classic Current Account( UCCA) . That the features of this accounts are,

a) the provisions of AMB( Average Monthly Balance) is of three catagories ( i) Rs.50,000/- (ii) Rs.1,00,000/- (iii) Rs. 5,00,000/- 

b) the average monthly balance in UCCA is calculated from 16^th of the existing month to 15^th of the next month.  

c) that cash withdrawal, NEFT/RTGS/ Interest limit per day is unlimited.

d) free cash deposit limit per month is (i) Rs.50 lac (ii) Rs.75 lac (iii) unlimited respectively as per the above stated categories. 

           On 18.03.2019 the Complainant’s cash handling was more than 50,00,000/- in a month and cash handling charges imposed on excess amount ,this has shown in the bank statement. That after charging the cash handling charges, the minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- of his account came down and a penalty for non- maintenance of account i.e. Rs.2,000/- has debited. The O.P. further submitted that the charge what has been debited in the account of the Complainant is within the ambit of provision of the UCCA. There is no merit in the complaint so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   

To prove his case , the complainant has filed (i) a copy of complaint filed before The Assistant Director Consumer Affairs & FBP, Balurghat, Dakshin Dinajpur.(ii) a Copy of letter dated 25.04.2019 addressed to O.P. (iii) a copy of reply dated 02.05.2019 by O.P. (iv) a copy of statement of UCCAN A/C bearing No. 611001010050219.

On the other hand , the O.P. also filed (i) Bank statement of account of the Complainant up to current date since opening of the account (ii) A/C opening Form of the Complainant (iii) Union Classic Current A/C features and (iv) copy of highlights of UCCA.

In view of the above mentioned facts, the following points are cropped up for consideration .  

                         POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION 

        1.  Whether the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party?

          2.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

          3.  Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 

                            DECISION  WITH  REASONS

              We have heard arguments by Ld. Advocates for the both sides at length. We have gone through the written examination – in – chief and written arguments filed by both the parties as well as the other materials on record.            

           At the time of argument, Ld advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint. He further submitted  that the O.P. never told the Complainant that the transaction month starts from 16^th of the existing month to 15^th of the next month. The RTGS/NEFT and Minimum Balance Charges of Rs.14,707 have been debited whimsically and arbitrarily by the O.P. So, the said amount is required to be paid to the Complainant with interest and the Complainant should be compensated. The complainant has successfully proved his case . Hence, the Complaint should be allowed. 

           On the other hand , Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party submitted that the terms and conditions of UCCA were fully known to the Complainant. He was known to the fact that the period of 30 days  or a month is calculated from the 16^th of the each month to 15^th of the next month. If these matters and features were unknown to him. It was normal to make default or error in transaction at the initial stage of account’s operation. The true fact is that up to first six months his activities  was up to Bank guide line. So, he was aware about  the Bank norms under UCCA. All the liabilities or loss has been occurred due to the negligence and willful wrong of the Complainant. So, the instant case is liable to be dismissed.  

           Now, let us discuss all the points one by one. 

Point No. 1     

         This point has not been raised by Ld advocate for the Opposite Party at the time of argument. However, on perusal of materials on record, it appears that the Opposite Party has admitted that the Complainant is a Union Classic Current Account holder of the O.P. Bank. If that be the so, then there is no hesitation to say that the Complainant is a consumer to the Opposite Party under the provision of the C.P. Act. 

                Accordingly, this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.  

Point Nos. 2 & 3   

           Both these points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and brevity.

           At the time of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Advocate for the O.P. that an account holder having UCCA account is required to have Average Monthly Balance of Rs.50,000/- in the account and he can handle case transaction of Rs. 50,00,000/- in a month and the periodicity of calculation of Average Monthly Balance of such type of account started from the 16^th of the existing month to15th of next month. If the account holder handle case transaction more than 50,00,000/- NEFT/RTGS charges will be debited and if the Average Monthly Balance be less than 50,000/- a penalty of Rs.2,000/- will be debited.

          Now, it is admitted by the Complainant  in para 1 of his Complaint that as per UCCA rules he can handle transaction of Rs.50,00,000/- in a month but he alleged that  it was not told to the Complainant by the O.P. that the transaction month starts from 16^th of existing month to 15^th of the next month. But in the website of Union Bank the periodicity for calculation of AMB starts from 16^th of previous month to 15^th of the current month .

         However, on perusal of the statement of account of the Complainant, submitted by both the parties, it appears that the Complainant has handled case transaction of Rs.51,52,000/- from

16.02.2019 to 15.03.2019 and thus the Complainant has handled more transaction of Rs.1,52,000 and for that reason the O.P. Bank has debited Rs.179.36/- as over case transaction charge on 15.03.2019. After deduction of Rs.179.36/- the Average Minimum Balance from the account lowered down Rs.50,000/- to Rs.49,820/- and for that reason Rs.2,000/- has been debited from the account on 18.03.2019. 

          But from 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019, the monthly case transaction of the Complainant was Rs.36,00,000/- even then the O.P. Bank debited Rs.3113.40/- in this period time to time as RTGS/NEFT charges which is illegal. Again, from 16.04.2019 to 15.05.2019, the monthly case transaction of the Complainant was Rs.37,00,000/- even then the O.P. Bank deducted Rs.6524.19/- in this period time to time as RTGS/NEFT charges including Rs.2,000/- as Minimum Balance Charges on 19.04.2019 while the Minimum Balance in the account was Rs.57,206/- such deduction is also illegal. Again from 16.05.2019 to 15.06.2019, the Minimum Balance in the account was Rs.51,292/- even then the O.P. Bank debited Rs.2,000/- on 20.05.2019 as Minimum Balance Charges which is fully violation of the norms as shown in the doccuments submitted by the O.P. Bank . 

            In such circumstances , it appears that the O.P. Bank has debited Rs.3113.40/- + Rs. 6524.19/- + Rs2000.00/- = Rs11637.59/- illegally and whimsically which have to be paid to the Complainant.

          The Complainant approached on several occasions before the Opposite Party and lastly on 27.04.2019 sent a letter through speed post in spite of that the Opposite Party did not correct the said incorrect entries in the account.

 In view of the above mentioned discussions, it is clear that the Complainant is a bonafide consumer to the Opposite Party and the illegal and whimsical act of the O.P. Bank, compelled this commission to hold that the Opposite Party is liable for deficiency in service and the Complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.

Accordingly, both these points are decided in favour of the Complainant. 

Hence, it is

                                                O R D E R E D

            That the Consumer Case No. 69 of 2019 is allowed on contest in part but with cost. 

           The Opposite Party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.11637.59  /-  with an interest @ 8 % p.a. from 18.03.2019 till the full realization by issuing an account payee cheque  infavour of the Complainant within 45 days from the date of passing of this order. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- toward compensation failing which the Complainant is at liberty to execute the order according to law. 

              Let a plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.