DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L.,                                                              .....MEMBER-I 

CC. No.106/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

Mr.T.Natarajan,

S/o.Thenachi Nadar,

No.22/9, Manali New Town, Chennai 600 103.                               .........Complainant. 

                                                                          //Vs//

The Chief Manager,

State Bank of India,

No.110, M.H.Road,

Perambur, Chennai 600 011.                                                                 ...Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                              :   Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                          :  M/s.K.Kumaran, Advocate.

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 23.01.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and M/s.K.Kumaran Advocate,  counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in the banking service along with a prayer to direct the opposite party  to refund a sum of Rs.92/- made towards illegal deduction from his account and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant was maintaining a Saving Bank Account No.10313592929 with the State Bank of India, Perambur Branch since 2008 through which his monthly pension got credited. The crux of the complaint allegations was that the opposite party had deducted Rs.92/-, Rs.23/- each four times on an illegal reason of insufficient balance inspite of complainant having sufficient balance. The complainant’s account had a balance amount of Rs.4239/-.  The minimum balance amount was not informed by the opposite party either by message or by writing and also minimum balance requirement does not apply to the pensioner.  In earlier occasion similar deductions were made on 31.08.2015 and on 01.09.2015 for which a Writ Petition was filed which is pending.  Similar case was filed before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madurai on 12.04.2016 wherein the said complaint was allowed and a compensation of Rs.5,000/- along with cost of Rs.2,000 was given to the complainant. Hence the contention of the complainant was that the penalty of Rs.92/- imposed for attempting insufficient balance ATM withdrawal was illegal and thus the present complaint was filed for the following reliefs as mentioned below; 

To direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.92/- towards illegal deduction from the complainant’s account;

 To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant.  

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

Opposite party filed written version and admitted the fact that the complainant was having a bank balance of Rs.4262.43/- in his savings account as on 30.06.2016.  It was submitted that if the customers makes any attempt to withdraw less than the available amount, the system will allow him to withdraw the money either at the ATMs or at the Branch Offices.  In case, if the amount tried to be withdrawn was higher than the available balance in the account, then the system will not only decline payment, but also deduct charges as feeded in the system as per the rules.  As the complainant made attempts to withdraw higher amount than the available balance, apart from declining payment, the system also levied charges of Rs.23/- for each attempts as per the rules relating to transaction decline due to insufficient balance i.e. Rs.20/- Plus GST.  On the same day, when the complainant made an attempt to withdraw less that the available balance, the above said charges are not levied.  Here in this case also, with the complainant withdrawn Rs.1000/- through ATM on 30.06.2017, no transaction charges were levied. It was denied that the bank has deducted Rs.90/- on 01.09.2015. The complainant had filed a Writ Petition No.4176/2016 and the same was also dismissed by the High Court of Madras.  There was no animosity or malafide intention on the part of the Branch Manager of the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Unless the customer maintains the required the balance in their account, the system will automatically deduct the penalty charges from the account as per the rules in force. The Branch Manager has no role to pay at all as alleged by the complainant.  Therefore, the question of malafide intention on the part of the Branch Manager of the opposite party does not arise. Thus opposite party bank has acted only in accordance with the rules in force and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and there was no malafide intention or personal vengeance by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant.  Thus they sought for dismissal of the complaint. 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A6 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were filed.  

Point for consideration:-

Whether the deduction of Rs.92/- by the opposite party from the complainant’s Saving Bank Account No.10313592929 towards ATM withdrawal with insufficient balance amounts to deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Bank pass Book of the complainant was marked as Ex.A1;

Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 02.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A2;

Letter by the opposite party to the complainant dated 03.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A3;

Order copy of consumer forum in CC.No.76/2016 dated 16.03.2016 was marked as Ex.A4;

Minimum balance requirement – copy of RBI Guidelines dated 21.11.2005 was marked as Ex.A5;

Maintenance of Minimum balance – copy of RBI Guidelines dated 31.03.2015 was marked as Ex.A6;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their defence;

Transaction logs of the complainant was marked as Ex.B1;

Statement of Account of the complainant was marked as Ex.B2;

State Bank of India e-Circular dated 01.04.2017 was marked as Ex.B3;

  The Party in Person/complainant has submitted written arguments along with an endorsement letter that the written arguments may be treated as oral arguments.  Hence we considered the written arguments filed by the complainant as oral arguments for the adjudication of the disputes.  Oral arguments of the opposite party was heard and records perused.

The crux of the complaint by the party in person/complainant is that on 30.06.2017 when he had a balance of more than Rs.4,000/- the opposite party had deducted four times Rs.23/- totally Rs.92/- for not maintaining sufficient balance.  He also had stated that no prudent person will operate the ATM to withdraw the amount more than the balance amount in his card more than one time.  Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party cited the e-Circular dated 01.04.2017 issued by the State Bank of India in support of his contention that as per column 31 when the transaction decline via ATM due to insufficient balance amount, Rs.20+ST would be deducted as charges.  He also contended that the submission of the complainant that the writ petition is pending is false as the same has already got dismissed. Thus it is submitted by him that the complainant having only a minimum balance of Rs.4262.43 on that particular date had attempted to withdraw more than the said amount and for every time the withdrawal amount was declined, and the penalty and service tax of Rs.23/- was deducted. Thus, he argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in deducting the said amount of Rs.92/- and he sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On appreciation of the materials and pleadings produced by both the parties it is seen that the amount of Rs.92/- has been deducted from the complainant’s account only towards insufficient balance ATM withdrawal as per the bank’s circular.  Though the complainant had submitted that the minimum balance requirement is not applicable to the pensioners towards ATM withdrawals and no charges could be made, he did not produce any documents to show that the minimum balance requirements for ATM withdrawal or the imposition of penalty does not apply to them.  On the other hand the opposite party had produced the e-Circular which clearly stated that towards “Transaction decline due to insufficient balance” and “Cardless Cash withdrawal at ATMs” a sum of Rs.20+ST and Rs.22+ST will be deducted respectively.  In such circumstances we cannot hold that the deduction of charges by the opposite party amounted to deficiency in service.  We also read over the order passed by the DCDRC, Madurai made in CC.No.76/2016, in the said order the act of opposite party (Branch Manager, Canara Bank) in deducting amount for not maintaining minimum balance and closing the Saving Bank Account of the complainant had been dealt with which fact is entirely different from the present case and hence the said decision not applicable to the present case.  Further for the withdrawals made during 31.08.2015 and 01.09.2015 for not maintaining minimum balance, in the present complaint we could not entertain the said allegation.  In such facts and circumstances we hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in deducting the amount of Rs.92/- in the complainant’s saving bank account which was made only in accordance with the e-Circular of the opposite party’s Bank dated 01.04.2017. 

Point No.2:

As we have already held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31st day of January 2023.

 

   

  Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                        Sd/- 

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

 

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 30.06.2017 Bank pass book. Xerox

Ex.A2 02.04.2018 Complainant’s notice to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 03.03.2016 Letter given by the opposite party to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A4 16.03.2018 Order copy of consumer forum, Madurai in CC.No.76/2016 Xerox

Ex.A5 21.11.2005 Minimum balance requirement –copy of RBI Guide lines. Xerox

Ex.A6 31.03.2015 Maintenance of minimum balance –copy of RBI Guide lines. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 ................ Transction logs of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B2 .............. Statement of Account of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B3 01.04.2017 Copy of State Bank of India e-Circular. Xerox

 

 

   Sd/-                                                Sd/-                                                                SD/-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT