1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he has opened a Current Account bearing No.391301010029187 with the OP in the year, 2001 which was operative till 2012 and due to slow business the complainant was not able to maintain the said account properly.It is submitted that the complainant wanted to operate the said account in consultation with the OP and the OP assured all necessary helps in operating the account.Accordingly the complainant through one of his friends deposited Rs.1.00 lac in the said account on 18.12.2015 but to the utter surprise of the complainant, the OP on 19.12.2015 deducted Rs.40, 452/- from the said deposit showing “General Charges Recovery”.It is further submitted that the complainant approached and tried to convince the OP by recalling their past discussions and being convinced the OP assured to credit the deducted amount by the end of March, 2016 but in spite of repeated approach the complainant did not get any result.Finally the complainant got issued a notice to the OP on 23.4.2016 to which the OP did not prefer to reply.Thus alleging the deduction as arbitrary and attributing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to credit Rs.40, 452/- to the accounts of the complainant with interest @ 18% p.a. from 19.12.2015 and to pay Rs.30, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.
2. The Opp. Party filed counter admitting the General Current Account (GCA) No.391301010029187 opened by the complainant with them on 19.4.2001 where a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- was to be maintained by the complainant failing which the charges will be levied.It is contended that in the year, 2012 considering the request of the complainant, the OP upgraded the GCA into UCCA (Union Classic Current Account) to avail more facilities where the average monthly balance of Rs.50, 000/- was to be maintained or else a sum of Rs.2000/- shall be levied as charges per month.Since the complainant did not maintain the required balance, deduction of charges of Rs.40, 452/- were made which is non refundable as per bank Circular dt.22.6.2012.Thus denying any deficiency in service or any fault on its part the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.The complainant filed affidavit.Both the parties have filed written arguments.Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the complainant has opened Current Account No.391301010029187 with the OP in the year, 2001 under which a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- was required to be maintained.It is seen from the statement of accounts furnished by the OP that the complainant has not maintained the minimum balance and the OP had deducted the charges till 15.6.2012 @ Rs.100/- to Rs.110/- or Rs.98.33 p.m.
5. The case of the complainant is that as per his request, one of his friends deposited Rs.1.00 lac in the GCA of the complainant on 18.12.2015 but the OP on 19.12.2015 has arbitrarily deducted Rs.40, 452/- in a single day from the said account.In support of their action, the OP stated in its counter at para-3 that in the year, 2012, considering the application of the complainant, the OP upgraded the GCA of the complainant into UCCA under which a minimum monthly balance of Rs.50, 000/- is required to be maintained and if the said balance is not maintained, a penalty of Rs.2000/- p.m. shall be levied.As the complainant did not maintain the minimum balance, he was penalized and Rs.40, 452/- was deducted towards penalty.
6. The complainant in his written argument stated that he was never being a customer of UCCA under the OP.The OP though stated that considering the application of the complainant in the year 2012 they upgraded the GCA into UCCA, but in support of their said contention the OP has not filed a piece of paper.On the other hand the OP in its written argument submitted that considering the application of the complainant and on his request during the year, 2008, they upgraded the GCA into UCCA to avail more facilities and benefits.The above two contentions of the OP are contradictory to each other.If the complainant had applied in the year, 2008, why should not the bank consider the application of the complainant then?The OP has not shown any reason as to why they considered the application of 2008 in the year, 2012.It is seen from the statement of accounts that the OP has deducted the charges from the credit of the complainant till 15.6.12 under GCA.Hence the complainant was under GCA till 15.6.2012.The application of the complainant submitted during 2008 was not considered till 15.6.2012 without assigning any reason but all of a sudden the OP upgraded the GCA into UCCA in the month of July, 2012.It is not known as to who compelled the OP to upgrade the GCA into UCCA during July, 2012.
7. The OP has filed copy of UCCA Scheme Document information as Instruction Circular No.9315 dt.22.6.12.It is seen from the said Circular that the UBI top Management Committee has decided to launch a campaign for opening of 1.00 lac new accounts and revival of old current accounts.Through that circular it has been proposed to launch an intensive campaign from 1st July, 2012 for opening of new accounts of 100000 in the next three months.In the above circumstances, we feel, in order to achieve target and as a part of active campaign, the OP all of a sudden without consulting the complainant has upgraded the GCA into UCCA during July, 2012 when there was no such money in the accounts of the complainant.Such up gradation of accounts of the complainant by the OP in our opinion is a gross mistake committed by the OP when there was no such money in the accounts of the complainant to maintain UCCA.Had the complainant had any intention to upgrade his GCA into UCCA, he would have maintained his accounts well in advance as per rules of said scheme.Therefore, the OP on its own accord has upgraded the account during July, 2012 without the knowledge of the complainant and hence in our opinion such deduction of Rs.40, 452/- is illegal and arbitrary.
8. We have carefully gone through the instruction Circular No.7675 dt.24.5.2007 of UBI filed by the OP.At Sl. No.3 of that circular it has been categorically mentioned that “on non maintenance of AMB of the lowest category i.e. Rs.50, 000/- for two consecutive months or two intermittent months, concessions will not be offered and the customer will be out of the scheme”.It is seen from the statement of accounts that the OP started deduction of Rs.2000/- p.m. from 15.7.2012 as per their averment that they upgraded the accounts in the year, 2012.It is also seen that the complainant had no required balance at that time to maintain the UCCA.He deposited Rs.1.00 lac only on 18.12.15.When the complainant could not maintain the balance starting from 15.7.2012 till 18.12.2015, he had no qualification to remain under the scheme and as per instruction of the Circular dt.24.5.2007 the complainant should put out of the scheme after two months of entry.When the complainant was out of the scheme it was not understood as to how the deductions were made regularly for 25 months.As no explanation has been furnished by the OP for such deductions, we safely hold that the deductions were made arbitrarily without following the UBI guidelines.
9. At para-2 of its counter, the OP categorically stated that since the complainant did not maintain the minimum balance of Rs.5000/- till 15.6.2012 they deducted Rs.100/- to Rs.110/- or Rs.98.33 p.m.In this context, the statement of accounts filed by the OP clearly shows that there was a balance of more than Rs.5000/- all along till 15.6.2012.Hence when the complainant was maintaining the minimum balance, deductions of Rs.1346/- in the name of non maintenance of minimum balance are unjustified.At the cost of repetition it can be said that the OP has made deductions under UCCA from 15.7.2012 when there was no qualification of the complainant to be pushed into UCCA scheme.It is seen that the complainant has deposited Rs.1.00 lac on 18.12.15 and the OP on a single day i.e. on 19.12.15 has made as many as 25 deductions @ Rs.2000/- p.m. as found from the statement of accounts furnished by the OP.The amount so deducted @ Rs.2000/- for 25 months comes to Rs.50, 000/-.
10. From the above discussions, we come to the conclusion that the complainant was never being the UCCA holder and the OP as per his own accord upgraded the GCA of the complainant into UCCA.Further the OP has not followed the instructions as mentioned in their own circular and kept deducting charges for 25 months @ Rs.2000/- p.m. arbitrarily.The above action of the Op in our opinion amounts to serious deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which the complainant suffered loss and sustained mental agony.His aim to restart business also could not be materialized due to such huge deductions.Hence the complainant is entitled to get back the deductions of Rs.50, 000/- plus Rs.1346/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.12.2015.For the sufferings, we feel a sum of Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation in favour of the complainant will meet the ends of justice besides Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.
11. Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Opp. Party is directed to refund Rs.51, 346/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 19.12.2015 and to pay Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation besides Rs.2000/- towards costs to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.
(to dict.)
