BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 500/2001

Dated : 15.12.2008

Complainant:

Ravikrishnan.N.R, Advocate, House No. 101, N.S.P.Nagar, Kesavadasapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.

Opposite party:

The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, KentonTowers, Near Kalabhavan Theatre, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram.

This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 05.08.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 29.11.2008, the Forum on 15.12.2008 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

The complainant in this case is an advocate. The opposite party is HDFC Bank. The complainant opened a savings account in the opposite party's bank as per the request of the business executive of the opposite party on 06.01.2001. The business executive explained the conditions of the savings account to the complainant which are (a) A minimum amount of Rs. 5000/- is required to open the account.(b) the complainant can maintain the account with zero balance ie; without any amount in the account upto three months.(c) If the complainant failed to credit some amount into the account so as to change the status of 'zero balance' after the expiry of 3 months, a fine of Rs. 150/- will be levied from the petitioner. The complainant agreed to comply with the above said conditions and opened an account with the opposite party bank, along with his wife, as joint account. The business executive issued an application form and both the complainant and his wife signed in the application form. Then the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 5000/- to the business executive of the opposite party. The opposite party issued account No. as 0631000041109 and also two ATM cards to the complainant. The complainant used to withdraw and deposit cash using the ATM card and two statements were also sent by the opposite party to the complainant after the 3^rd month of 2001 and 6^th month of 2001. On

31.07.2001 when the complainant enquired about the balance in his account, he noticed a debit of Rs. 300/- as miscellaneous debit. The complainant was surprised to notice the same and was unable to understand why such debit was made from his account. The complainant enquired about the same with the opposite party's bank and the official with whom the petitioner met told him that the debit was made as he failed to keep the minimum balance of Rs. 5000/- within the account. The complainant submitted that such a condition was not disclosed to the complainant at the time when he started the contract, i.e; account with the bank. Had the business executive disclosed such a condition, the petitioner would have maintained minimum quarterly balance to avoid the above said debit. The business executive i.e; the agent of opposite party has done a foul play to the petitioner. Neither the pamphlets nor the statement of accounts contained such a condition and for such foul play the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant. It is submitted that the above said foul play is a tactics adopted by the opposite party so as to canvas accounts to his bank and the same will amount to unfair trade practice, which a reputed bank like the opposite party is not expected to do. The miscellaneous debit made by the opposite party is not authorized and the same is against the conditions explained by the opposite party at the time of opening the account. It is pertinent to note that in the statement send to the complainant the same debit was accounted as AQB service charge for QTR APR-JUN-2001.” dated 29.07.2001. In the balance enquiry statement the same amount is accounted as MSD i.e; miscellaneous debit. The same itself shows that the debit is an unauthorized one. Then on 27.08.2001, the complainant issued a notice demanding a refund of the debit made by the opposite party. For the same, the opposite party has issued a reply stating false and frivolous reply to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant decided to close the account and withdraw the amount from the account. When he checked the balance amount, he noticed that again an amount of Rs. 300/- was deducted from his account in the head of service charge debit (SCD). So a total amount of Rs. 600/- is deducted unauthorizedly. The complainant could only understand about such a deduction only after the same and no condition was disclosed to the complainant by the opposite party at the time of opening the account. The complainant has closed the account by withdrawing the amount using ATM card but an amount of Rs. 43/- is still in his account as he could not withdraw the same using his ATM card. The opposite party has played unfair trade practice so as to canvass the account from the complainant and has made unauthorized deduction of Rs. 600/- from the complainant. As the deduction was unauthorized, the opposite party is liable to repay the said amount along with Rs. 43/- which is still in the account of the complainant. Hence the complainant filed this complaint against the opposite party for the redressal of his grievances.

The opposite party filed detailed version challenging the contentions of the complainant. In their version the opposite party stated that the complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute between the complainant and opposite party. They further submitted that the business executive of the opposite party contacted the complainant to open a savings account in the opposite party. A brochure and a booklet containing the terms and conditions of the opposite party was given to the complainant. The brochure contained all the informations and terms and conditions for opening a savings bank account among other services offered by the opposite party. In the brochure two options are mentioned. A person who is willing to open a savings account can choose any of the options. The first option that was mentioned in the brochure under the heading option No. 1 clearly states that the minimum average quarterly balance should be Rs. 5000/- and if the average quarterly balance is between Rs. 2500/- and Rs. 5000/- then Rs. 150/- per quarter is charged, and if the average quarterly balance is below Rs. 2500/-, then Rs. 300/- per quarter will be charged. The other option which is mentioned under the heading option 2 states that the fixed deposit maintenance should be Rs. 25000/- wherein there is no minimum balance requirement and no monthly fee will be charged, and in case of non-maintenance of Rs. 25000/- in the fixed deposit, Rs. 150/- per quarter will be charged. The complainant opted No. 1 which is clearly mentioned in the brochure and opened a joint account along with his wife and a cheque was issued for Rs. 5000/-. The opposite party issued Account No. 0631000041109 and two ATM cards to the complainant. The opposite party further submitted that the complainant himself opted for the option No. 1 in opening the account. The amount of Rs. 300/- was charged by the opposite party because the complainant failed to maintain the average quarterly balance. The balance amount in his account was below Rs. 2500/- which resulted in levying charge of Rs. 300/-. the complainant opened the account after understanding about the terms ad conditions, and the contention that he was unaware and surprised about the said fact is not true. As per the opposite party, the complainant has not sustained any loss and mental agony and as such the reliefs sought for are liable to be dismissed.

The complainant and opposite party filed proof affidavit. Form the complainant's side 17 documents were produced and marked as Exts. P1 to P17. Opposite party produced 2 documents that were marked as Exts. D1 and D2.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there has been deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for?

3. Costs.

In this case the complainant states that he was unaware of the fact that minimum balance of Rs. 5000/- should be kept in the bank. The complainant is not a layman, he is an advocate. Before entering into the contract, he should have read the terms and conditions of the agreement. The filled application form produced by the opposite party marked as Ext. D2 shows that the complainant and his wife made declaration that they have read and understood the terms and conditions and also they stated that they have the copy of the same. The opposite party produced the brochure containing the terms and conditions of the opposite party bank. From that document we can understand that if the average quarterly balance is below Rs. 2500/-, then Rs. 300/- per quarter will be charged. In this case, the complainant failed to maintain the average quarterly balance accordingly. Hence the opposite party levied Rs. 300/- two times from the account of the complainant. Hence we have found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Since the complainant has accepted the terms and conditions by affixing his signature, he cannot evade from the said terms and conditions.

Though the terms and conditions are issued to the customers, the Bank authorities are not explaining and making the customers aware of such conditions with regard to keeping minimum balance etc. Even a consumer like the complainant who is a lawyer suffers from such difficulties, we can understand the situation of an ordinary man. At this juncture, this Forum would like to opine that the opposite parties should make their customers aware of the terms and conditions pertaining to their account.

Hence the complaint is dismissed and the opposite party shall refund Rs. 43/- to the complainant.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15^th December 2008.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 500/2001

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of ATM Transaction Record dated 03.11.2001.

P2 - Letter dated 15.09.2001 issued by the complainant to the

opposite party.

P3 - Transaction details of Account No. 0631000041109 from

01.07.2001 to 28.09.2001.

P4 - Transaction details of Account No. 0631000041109 from

06.01.2001 to 31.03.2001.

P5 - Transaction details of Account No. 0631000041109 from

01.04.2001 to 30.06.2001.

P6 - Photocopy of account opening form for resident

individuals/sole proprietorship firms.

P7 - Copy of letter dated 27.08.2001 issued to the opposite party

by the complainant.

P8 - Postal receipt dated 28.08.2001.

P9 - Postal acknowledgement card.

P10 - ATM transaction record.

P11 - ATM transaction record.

P12 - ATM transaction record.

P13 - ATM transaction record.

P14 - Specimen Signature card issued by opposite party.

P15 - Specimen form for account opening for resident individuals.

P16 - Specimen nomination form.

P17 - Specimen form No. 60.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT