COMPLAINT FILED: 28.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 15th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 234/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Manoj. M,<br /> Aged about 36 years,<br /> S/o. K. Madhusudhanan,<br /> r/a # 980, ‘Aishwarya’,<br /> Ist Cross, II Phase, V Stage,<br /> BEML Layout,<br /> Rajarajeswari Nagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 098. <br /> <br /> Advocate (M. Mahesh)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,<br /> 52/60, M.G. Road, <br /> P.O. Box No. 631,<br /> Mumbai – 400 001.<br /> <br /> Also at<br /> <br /> The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.,<br /> No. 7, Post Bag No. 5297,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Rangarajan)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reverse the service charges of Rs.842.70, pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> OP promised 0 balance account facility to the complainant. He being lured away with the said offer opened the account at OP Bank on 02.04.2005. With all that OP imposed Rs.826.50 as the service charges. Immediately complainant brought the said defect to the notice of the OP, OP rectified the same and reversed it on 27.06.2005. Again OP committed the same mistake in the month of October 2008. When complainant raised the objection OP came up with a lame excuse and expressed its inability to reverse the said entry on the ground that earlier it was a corporate account later on it is converted into individual account, hence as per the banking norms, they are entitled to collect the service charges. The arbitrary act of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss. There is a breach of promise committed by the OP. Complainant got issued the legal notice on 23.10.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have not promised the complainant with respect to 0 balance account facility as alleged. It was a corporate account which was opened first, but in the meantime complainant resigned and his employer withdrawn the said facility, as such as per the banking norms OP considered the said account one from corporate to individual. When it become the individual account, complainant is liable to pay the service charges. In order to keep up the good harmony and relationship once the said charges were reversed, but complainant cannot take the undue advantage of the same. When OP followed the banking rules and regulations and RBI directions, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. It is much contended by the complainant that OP promised 0 balance account facility to him. For this contention basically there is no proof. Complainant though aware of the fact that the so called account opened by the OP is a corporate account at an initial stage while he was in service with some company. Thereafter he left the job. Under such circumstances OP converted the said corporate account into individual account. Though complainant is aware of the said fact, it has not pleaded. Hence the approach of the complainant in that regard rather does not appears to be fair and honest. Of course OP admits with regard to imposition of the service charges in the month of April 2005. In order to keep good rapport and relationship with the customer they once reversed it and that act of the OP cannot be taken as a granted in the subsequent transaction also.<br /> <br /> 7. According to the complainant in the month of October 2008 again he noticed imposition of the service charges, by that time the corporate account of the complainant was converted into individual account. Complainant is aware of the same, but still complainant says that without his consent the said account is converted. We do not find force in the said contention of the complainant. Complainant is aware of the banking norms, regulations, rules the terms and conditions of benefits available in certain scheme floated and proposed by the Bank. The correspondence made by the OP that too letter dated 27.10.2008 clearly speaks to the fact of sending information to complainant about the levy of the service charges. When that is so, the contention of the complainant that without his consent and knowledge charges are imposed rather does not hold force.<br /> <br /> 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that OP has followed the banking norms, practice in conformity with the guidelines issued by the RBI. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. When the corporate account is converted into individual account as per the terms and conditions facilities availed, complainant is expected to keep minimum average quarterly balance (AQB) of Rs.25,000/-, but complainant failed to maintain the said balance. Under such circumstances it can be safely said that complainant is the defaulter and a defaulter cannot allege the deficiency in service. With these reasons we find the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 15th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />