DATE OF FILING : 8.3.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of June, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDHU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.56/2011
Between
Complainant : Highrange Plantation Workers Development Society,
Reg. No.I-291/95, Rajakkadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
E.K. Mohanan,
Edayanikkattu House,
Mammattikkanam P.O.,
Rajakkadu, Idukki District . And
Opposite Party : The Branch Manager,
State Bank of Travancore,
Pottankad Branch,
Pottankad P.O.,
Bisonvalley, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Babichen V. George)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
The complainant is a charitable society registered under the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, is represented by its secretary. On 5.2.1999, the complainant opened current account No.28 with the opposite party and the said number was later converted into 57066118335. That was opened exclusively for the purpose of receiving foreign contribution for doing welfare activities among plantation workers. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India had given registration to the complainant as per the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 1976 and communicated the same to the complainant as well as to the opposite party as per communication dated 19.11.1999. As per the communication, it is specifically instructed to the complainant as well as the opposite party that the said account shall be used exclusively for receiving the foreign contribution and no other amount should be credited to the said account. The opposite party further directed to send intimations regarding inward remittance received by the complainant to the Ministry of Home Affairs on yearly basis. The complainant received foreign contribution through the said account up to 2004 and thereafter there was no contribution from any foreign countries. All the contributions received during the said periods were withdrawn and appropriated for the purpose for which the same were contributed. Since that account was used for receiving foreign contribution and there was a specific restriction for crediting any other amount in the said account, the opposite party did not permit the complainant to deposit any amount in the account other than the minimum balance. As per written demands made by the opposite party, the complainant deposited and maintained the minimum balance amount up to 2009. On 29.9.2010, surprisingly and without any intimation or notice to the complainant, the opposite party closed the said account giving credit to an amount of Rs.4,323/- as
(cont....2)
- 2 -
loan to tally the debit side of the said account. The said act of the opposite party is a clear violation of the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The complainant was not able to deposit any excess amount personally in the account since it was a foreign transaction account. Since the account is maintained with the knowledge of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, for a specific purpose, the opposite party is liable and responsible to intimate the complainant before closure of the account. If the opposite party intimated the matter of the closure to the complainant, the complainant definitely would have deposited the minimum balance amount and avoid the illegal closure of the account. It sustained irreparable injury, loss and hardships by the said illegal act of the opposite party. So the complainant estimates a damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh as compensation and the damages for the illegal closure of the account and the opposite party is liable to re-open and restore the account on deposit of the minimum balance amount by the complainant. The complainant was always ready and willing to deposit the minimum balance amount if permitted by the opposite party. On getting information about the illegal and unexpected closure of the account, the complainant issued a legal notice dated 30.10.2010 demanding to re-open and restore the account and to pay damage to the tune of Rs.1 lakh. The opposite party received the same on 2.11.2010 but after a period of 1½ month, they issued an untenable reply containing false statements. The opposite party never informed the complainant that the minimum balance required to be maintained in the account is Rs.5,000/- but instead the opposite party directed only to keep an amount of Rs.1,000/- in the account as minimum balance. After 2009, the opposite party never demanded the complainant to maintain the minimum balance in the above said account. If the account is not re-opened and restored, the complainant has to again approach the Central Government for getting permission to receive foreign contribution through a new bank account. It requires several procedural formalities and the complainant will have to spend money, time and even required to travel to New Delhi. So this petition is filed for directing the opposite party to restore the illegally closed account and also for damage.
2. As per the written version filed by the opposite party, it is true that no foreign contribution has been transferred in the account since 2004. Several written demands were given to the complainant for maintenance of the above account. The complainant's account was a current account which requires regular transaction. If minimum balance is not maintained, penalty for the same will be levied upon account periodically. This is done uniformly through Core Banking Solutions by central office, Mumbai. As a result of the periodical deduction of charges for non maintenance of minimum balance in the account, the same showed 'zero' balance on 30.9.2006. Thereafter the charges for non maintenance of minimum balance was debited and therefore the account showed debit balance. As the above said account has been running in debit balance continuously for a considerable period of time at 19.25% interest and the account holder was not heeding to the repeated request to close the account it was considered appropriate to close the account by transferring the required amount from the bank's own commission account No.0098353705273. It was done only on 29.9.2010 after a lapse of about 6 years after the account becoming dormant, when the debit balance raised to the extent of Rs.4,323/-. The complainant is liable to pay Rs.4,323/- and other interest and charges as on this date. The opposite party maintained the account of the complainant by transferring funds from banks own account to his account for a period of 6 years. Further the complainant is estopped from making pleadings, notice, intimation etc., by their own conduct. They were well aware of maintenance and penalty for non-maintenance of minimum balance etc., for they have deposited cash thrice during the above span of non operation of the said account. This proves that the complainant was aware of the fact that further money is required to maintain an account if it is operative or if minimum balance is not maintained several times. The said fact was intimated to the complainant personally and over the
(cont.....3)
- 3 -
phone. Moreover the notice was sent to the complainant on 2.8.2010 explaining all the above issues. Even then the complainant did not take any steps for the maintenance of the account. Closing an inoperative current account of an account holder cannot be considered as a clear violation of the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. The complainant had ever so many opportunities to avoid the closure of his current account. The interest rates, service charges, minimum balance etc., changes periodically. It is a phenomenon that occurs uniformly throughout the country and made known to people at large. It is admitted by the complainant that the opposite party demanded the complainant to maintain the minimum balance in the above said account till 2009. The complainant was not operating his account since 2004. The debit balance which was timely debited to complainant's account to the extent of Rs.4,323/- which is purely bank's own fund. So the complaint is not at all maintainable.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts. P1 to P5 marked on the side of the complainant. There is oral testimony of DW1 and Exts. R1 to R5 marked on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT :- As per the complainant, it is a charitable society and opened an account at the opposite party bank exclusively for receiving foreign contributions as per the norms of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, which given the registration to the complainant. The current account number was 28, opened on 5.2.1999. Even though several transactions were done through the account, the complainant cannot deposit minimum balance to the account because of the restrictions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. That is also restricted by the opposite party. The complainant was keeping the minimum balance upto 2009 and the pass book issued by the opposite party for the transactions is produced by the complainant and is marked as Ext.P1. Unfortunately, on 29.9.2010, it was seen that the account of the complainant was closed by the opposite party without any notice or information to the complainant and credited an amount of Rs.4,323/-. Rs.4,323/- was seen as loan to tally the debit side of the complainant's account. Ext.P2 is the copy of statements of account of the complainant's account at the opposite party. The letter received from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, to the complainant stating that the account of the complainant is exclusively for receiving foreign contributions and no other amount should be credited to the account is marked as Ext.P3. On revealing that the account of the complainant was closed illegally by the opposite party without any notice, a legal notice was issued to the opposite party by the complainant demanding to re-open and restore the account No.57066118335 and have stated his willingness to deposit the minimum balance. The true copy of the same is marked as Ext.P5. After 1½ months of receipt of the notice, the opposite party issued a reply notice to the complainant stating that the minimum balance fixed for the current account in semi urban branches is Rs.5,000/-. It is marked as Ext.P4. The manager of the opposite party appeared and produced evidence as DW1. As per DW1, certain amount was deposited in the account of the complainant and the amounts were deposited in the account on 26.7.2002, 28.3.2008 and 31.3.2001. After 2004, nothing was deposited in the account of the complainant. Upto 2007, the minimum balance was Rs.1,000/- for the account of the complainant. Ext.R1 is the statement of account of the complainant to show that the three deposits has been effected in the account. After that the minimum balance of the semi urban area was raised to Rs.3,000/-. So the penalty will be charged in every quarter closing time for the same. It is done by the system centrally due to core banking. So an amount was transferred from the account of the bank and it is also written in
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
Ext.R1 and an amount of Rs.4,323/- was taken as loan from the bank account to the complainant's account and it is to be repaid with 19.5% interest to the bank. The account of the bank showing the same is marked as Ext.R2. On 29.9.2010, Rs.4,323/- was transferred into the complainant's account and it was closed. In order to avoid the interest, a notice was issued to the complainant on 2.8.2010 at the time of quarterly closing and it is marked as Ext.R3 and copy of the despatch register of the same is marked as Ext.R4. A circular of the SBT stating the minimum balance for current account in semi urban area is Rs.3,000/- is produced and it is marked as Ext.R5 and it is displayed by the bank itself and also in the website of the bank. The same is also displayed in medias. The current account is an account in which there would be transactions frequently. When it was debit, it is transferred as loan and there was no security for the same. So the bank closed the account of the complainant with the permission of the concerned officers. The same account cannot be install again which is it not practical because it is core banking system and once an account number has been issued, it cannot be allotted again. The account was closed because there was no transaction for a very long time. As per the cross examination of the complainant, it was suggested that if the matter was informed by the bank to the complainant, the minimum balance would have remitted by them. But the opposite party deposed that the notice was issued for regularising the account.
As per the opposite party, they have closed the account of the complainant because there was no transaction for a very long time and it is a current account which needs frequent transaction. The complainant was not keeping the minimum balance for a very long period. So the account was closed and a letter was also issued to the complainant stating the same before closing the account. Ext.R3 is the office copy of the letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant stating the same and it is dated 2.8.2010. Ext.R4 is the copy of the despatch register produced by the opposite party showing the despatch of the letter. It is submitted by the complainant that, in Ext.R4, it is stated that the letter has been issued only on 10.8.2010, and on the letter, it is written that it was send on 2.8.2010. In Ext.R4, it is written that the despatch has been addressed in the name of Highrange Plantation Workers, but seems like a fabricated one, it was not done at the time of writing the despatch register but afterwards. On perusal of the same, the address of the complainant written in the despatch register, is not like of the other addresses and the complainant's address is not written in the place of column for writing the address. It is written in the top of the column in which another address is also written. So we think that it is not at all reliable.
As per the complainant, the opposite party closed the account without giving any notice or letter to the complainant. The complainant cannot deposit any amount in the account because it is exclusively for foreign money contribution as per the restriction of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. No amount can deposit in that account by the complainant. So the complainant was regularly keeping the minimum balance in that account upto 2009. The amount deposited in the account were used for the purpose of the same and no amount has been contributed for that account. If the opposite party issued any letter or information to the complainant about the minimum balance, the complainant should have remitted the amount to the opposite party's loan account. So without intimating the matter, the opposite party closed the account and now the complainant cannot maintain the account. So if it is not restored, the complainant should again approach the Central Government for getting permission to receive the foreign contributions through the new bank account. It requires several procedural formalities and the complainant would have to spend time and money and even require to travel to New Delhi. So the complainant directed the opposite party to restore the account by Ext.P5 legal notice. But the opposite party stated that it cannot be practical to issue the same account number again because it is core banking system. Once the account is generated, it cannot be issued again. As per the reply issued by the
(cont....5)
- 5 -
opposite party, the minimum balance for current account in semi urban area is Rs.5,000/- and as per the circular produced by the opposite party as Ext.R4, the minimum balance for current account in semi urban area is Rs.3,000/-.
Eventhough the complainant was not doing regular transactions in the current account and not maintaining the minimum balance for current account, the opposite party ought to have issue notice to the complainant before closing his account because the account has been working as per the norms of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India and no amount can be deposited by the complainant in the account. The amount deposited in the account were distributed for the purpose of the same. As per the opposite party, the amount of Rs.4,323/- was taken from the account of the bank for keeping the minimum balance and the complainant is entitled to pay the same. But no notice has been issued to the complainant showing the same. No registered notice has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant to show that the bank intimated the complainant about the closing of the account. So it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party to close the account of the complainant being it is a charitable society and is working as per the directions of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of Inida, and it is for the charitable purpose. So certain restrictions are in the transactions of the account. Ext.R4 despatch register produced by the opposite party is not at all reliable and we think that no letter has been issued by the opposite party to the complainant before closing the account. The complainant requires several procedural formalities to open another account for the same purpose. They have to
get permission from the Central Government, Ministry of Home Affairs and even to travel to New Delhi. The opposite party cannot restore the same account because it is core banking facility and the system will not provide the same account number again. So we think that the opposite party should compensate the complainant for the same and we fix Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the same. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that great mental agony and distress happened to the complainant because of the same.
Hence the petition partially allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service of the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.500/- as cost of this petition within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011
Sd/- SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
(cont....6)
- 6 -
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Saju Mathew.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The pass book issued by the opposite party for the transactions.
Ext.P2 - Copy of statements account of the complainant's account at the opposite party.
Ext.P3 - The letter from the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs,
to the complainant, dated 19.11.1999.
Ext.P4 - The notice issued by the opposite party dated 22.12.2010.
Ext.P5 - Copy of the legal notice issued by the complainant dated 30.10.1010.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of statements account of the complainant's account from 5.8.1989
to 24.6.2011.
Ext.R2 - Copy of statements account of the complainant's account from 29.9.2010
to 29.9.2010.
Ext.R3 - The office copy of the letter issued by the opposite party dated 2.8.2010.
Ext.R4 - Copy of the despatch register of the opposite party.
Ext.R5 - Copy of the circular of SBT dated 16.7.2007.
