THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 36  of  2020

 

 

Sri Narayan Prasad Dasgupta,

S/O-Late Banamali Dasgupta,

Radhanagar, P.O. Agartala, 

P.S. West Agartala,

District- West Tripura. ...….................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The General Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Head Office at 6/242,

Senapati Bapat Margh,

Lower Parel, P.S. Worli,

Mumbai-400 013.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank,

Math Chowmuhani Branch,

Shivnagar, College Road,

P.S. East Agartala,

Agartala, West Tripura ..................Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Pulak Saha,

  Sri Malay Debnath,

  Learned Advocates.

    

For the O.Ps : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON  : 25.08.2021

J U D G M E N T

The Complainant's case in short is that the complainant is a pensioner and pension is his only source of income. He is an account holder of HDFC Bank, Agartala, Math Chowmuhani Branch and have a Bank Account vide no- A/C No- 550100167363286. In the month of May, 2019 he got a message from the bank of the Opposite party(shortly O.P.) in his registered mobile number that the bank had charged penalty from him for not maintaining minimum balance in his account. After getting message he went to the O.P. bank on 06.06.2019. The officials of the O.P. told him until and unless he pay the penalty of Rs.2,347/- which was due to his account  the bank account cannot be closed. Accordingly he paid same but the O.P. again sent message for remittance of penalty amount accrued in his account for not maintaining minimum balance in his account. Complainant thereafter again visited the said branch and asked them to provide account statement but the O.P. refused to give such statement and asked to clear the dues first then only the O.P. will provide statement to him. It is stated by the complainant that the O.P. has caused deficiency of service/negligent in providing service to the complainant and he suffered physically and mentally for such act of the O.P. and prayed for relief. Hence, this complaint. 

 

2. On the other hand, the O.Ps appeared and filed written statement denying all the allegations made by the complainant. It is stated by the O.Ps that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, fabricated and baseless statement. It is stated by the O.Ps that at the time of opening the said account with the bank it as been explained that the account holder is liable to maintain ''Average Monthly Balance'' in his account which the complainant failed to maintain and as such he was charged penalty. Complainant were also vividly explained to the terms and conditions, charge structure etc. i.e., minimum average monthly balance of Rs.5,000/- required to be maintained in his account. But the complainant failed to maintain the same. Therefore respective service charge as per terms were imposed upon the account of the complainant. It is denied by the O.P. that Rs.705/- has been wrongfully or illegally withheld by the O.P. bank. It is stated by the O.P. that the complainant paid only Rs. 2350/- in cash. Bank could not close his account as on 31.08.2020 the total due was Rs.5661/- accrued in his account. It is stated by the O.P. that there is no deficiency of service on their part and therefore the complaint petition is liable to dismissed.  

 

4. EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE PARTIES:-

The complainant submitted his examination in chief on affidavit and also exhibited the original application dated 06.06.2019 issued to the bank which is marked Exhibit- 1. he is also cross examined by the O.P. On the other hand, O.Ps also submitted examination in chief on affidavit of the Branch Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd. Math Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala. They also filed Bank statements(5 pages) which are marked as Exhibit-A Series. The O.P. also cross examined by the complainant.

 

5. POINTS TO BE DETERMINED: - 

(i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps?

  (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation/ relief as prayed for?

 

6. ARGUMENTS: - 

Both the parties have submitted their written arguments. Complainant in his written argument have stated that O.P. HDFC Bank charged penalty of Rs. 2347/-against his savings account. So he after paying the charges prayed for closing his account  but the O.P. did not close his account and again they sent message in his registered mobile number for that an amount of Rs.3185/- was due. Complainant also stated that he never made any request for issuance of credit card in his favour. In fact the O.P. did not provide any credit card to the complainant.  

Opposite party in their written argument stated that complainant failed to maintain monthly average balance in his account  which is required as per terms and condition of the bank. Hence, the complainant has been charged for the same. All the terms and conditions were disclosed to the complainant before opening the account and after knowing fully well about all the terms and conditions i.e., the facilities and features the complainant opened the account with the bank. Minimum balance of Rs.5,000/- is required to maintain in the account of the complainant but the complainant failed to maintain the same, so the bank imposed penalty against his account. Complainant has been charged penalty for non maintenance of average monthly balance as prescribed & fixed within the powers delegated to banks by Regulators for doing so as per guidelines of RBI. They have also stated that complainant prayed for closing his savings account. O.P. bank as per schedule process closed the credit card account but on that period the total due was Rs.3,055/- in his savings account  due to non maintenance of minimum balance since 2017 and the complainant only paid Rs.2,350/- so the O.P. Bank could not close the account of the complainant as on 31.08.2020 the total due was Rs.5661/- accrued in his account. O.P. bank in no way liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Hence the O.P. prayed for rejecting the pryer of the complainant and impose an exemplary amount for harassing the O.P. bank. 

 

7. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:-

                     All the points are taken up together for convenience and decision. We have gone through the pleadings and the evidences, both oral and documentary adduced by the parties. Complainant was cross examined by the O.P. and at the time of cross examination he stated that he was aware about minimum balance amount of Rs.5,000/- which is to be kept in the account. He was also aware that bank was debited for yearly charge for using credit card. D.W. 1 namely Asish Sukla Baidya in his deposition stated that as per terms and conditions complainant was required to maintain an average monthly balance of Rs.5,000/- in his account. Complainant failed to maintain the average monthly balance of Rs.5,000/- in his savings bank account no- 50100167363286. Charges towards non-maintenance of minimum balance was debited as per agreed term. He further stated that complainant paid Rs.2350/- in cash in his savings account and submitted a prayer for closing the savings account along with credit card. Then the O.P. bank as per scheduled prayer closed the credit card account but on that period the total due was Rs.3055/- in his savings account due to non-maintenance of minimum charges since the year 2017. So bank could not close his account as on 31.08.2020 as total due was was Rs.5661/- accrued in his account.

From the pleadings as well as evidences of both sides we found that complainant failed to maintain the average minimum balance as per terms and conditions. It is admitted fact that the complainant made prayer for closing his account and O.P. could not close the account as there was dues. On appreciation of the evidences we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. Rather we found that the complainant failed to maintain his account by keeping minimum balance as per terms and conditions. So, we hold that complainant has failed to prove the allegations in respect of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. No costs. 

Supply copy of the judgment to both the parties free of costs.  

 

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.