Date of Filing 21.07.2023

                                                                                                             Date of Disposal: 31.01.2024

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

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

               THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                                              ……MEMBER-I

               THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.Com, ICWA(Inter), BL.,                                                            ……MEMBER-II

CC.No.66/2023

THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 31^st DAY OF JANUARY 2024

Mr.R.K.Moorthy,

S/o.Ragothaman,

No.2/910, Mugappair West,

Chennai 600 037.                                                                                    ......Complainant.

                                                                              //Vs//

The Manager,

Bank of Maharastra,

No.8/9, Bharathi Street,

Mogappair West,  Chennai 600 037.                                                    ….opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                        : Mr.M.Shanmugam, Advocate.

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

This complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 24.01.2024 in the presence of Mr.M.Shanmugam, counsel for the complainant and M/s.Abinesh, 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

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party with respect to the service rendered by the opposite party Bank along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs.25,143.35/- with interest from the date of receipt of notice and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

2. Alleging deficiency in service rendered by the opposite party Bank the present complaint was filed.

3. The crux of the complainant is that he was having account with the opposite party in the name and style of Gayathri Transport and during Covid-19 lockdown period he deposited Rs.25,000/- in his account on 28.04.2023.  However, as per the Bank Statement of Accounts on 16.05.2023, the balance showed as only Rs.143.35/-.  Thus stating that the opposite party had misappropriated Rs.24,859.62/- the present complaint was filed alleging that it amounts to cheating on the part of the opposite party.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

4. The crux of the written version filed by the opposite party was that the complainant was having a Current Account No.60356827993.  However it is stated that the complainant at the time of opening the Current Account agreed for the terms and conditions and also the mandatory condition to maintain Rs.5,000/-minimum balance in the account.  It is already informed to the complainant that failing to maintain minimum balance would attract penalty.  Thus for non maintenance of minimum balance for 34 months, the penalty accumulated to the tune of Rs.19,883/- and along with GST it comes to Rs.24,859.62/-.  Hence, when the complainant deposited Rs.25,000/- the said penalty got debited and the same could not be said to be deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex A6 were submitted. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1)    Whether the alleged act on the part of opposite party in deducting Rs.24,859.62/- from the complainant’s account towards penalty for non maintenance of minimum balance amounts to deficiency in service and if so whether the same has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?

2)    To what reliefs the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of their contentions;

1)    Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and other dated 19.05.2023 was marked as Ex.A1;

2)    Acknowledgement cards were marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A4;

3)    Statement of Accounts from 03.06.2020 to 02.06.2021 was marked as Ex.A5;

4)    Statement of Accounts from 03.06.2022 to 16.05.2023 was marked as Ex.A6;

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

5)    Terms and conditions was marked as Ex.B1;

6)    Statement of Accounts was marked as Ex.B2;

6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the complainant and it is submitted by the opposite party that the written arguments may be treated as oral arguments. Hence, written arguments considered as oral arguments of opposite party.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the opposite party Bank deducting amount from the deposit made by the complainant is a clear violation as RBI had directed that no coercive action should be taken by the Bankers during lockdown period.  Thus it is argued by him that the stand taken by the opposite party that they deducted the amount towards penalty for non-maintaining of minimum balance is unacceptable and he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayer for.

8. In the written arguments of the opposite party it was contended that when the complainant opened the Current Account with the Bank he accepted for all the terms and conditions and signed in the same and therefore now he cannot go back from his acceptance.  Further the opposite party also submitted that the reason for non-maintaining the minimum balance as alleged by the complainant could not be accepted in law and facts.  Thus it is stated that the complainant cannot question the act of Bank in deducting the amount and contend the same as deficiency in service.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

9. On appreciation of the entire documents and pleadings we could find that vide Ex.A6 the complainant had deposited Rs.25,000/- on28.04.2023.  However, on the same day it is seen that towards charges i.e. Minimum Balance Charges “MIN BAL CHGS” a sum of Rs.19,883.48/- has been debited by the Bank.  Further on the same day towards GST charges Rs.3,579.02/- has been debited. Also towards SMS charges Rs.200/- was debited on the same day.  Further GST charges Rs.36/- was also debited and the minimum was shown as Rs.1304.07/- on the same day.  Again certain amounts were debited on 02.05.2023 and 03.05.2023.  After deducting all amount the balance shown as Rs.143.35/-.  Thus the complainant’s allegation was proved that he deposited Rs.25,000/- but the minimum balance comes to Rs.143.35/-.  However now it becomes necessary to decide as to whether this debits/deductions made by the Bank are valid deductions.

10. The opposite party had filed Ex.B1 Terms and Conditions with regard to the service charges under which we could find that for non-maintenance of minimum balance for operative accounts a sum of Rs.2500/- per quarter is mentioned as service charges and the minimum balance was mentioned to be Rs.5,000/- per account.  Quarterly Average Balance is Rs.5,000/-. The Statement of Account was also filed vide Ex.B2 wherein it is found that from the month of July 2020 to June 2022 there was no transactions in the account of the complainant as per the Statement of Account.  Further for the period from 03.06.2022 to 03.06.2023 the deposit of Rs.25,000/- and the debits were shown.  The minimum balance as on 03.05.2023 is Rs.143.35/-.  It is stoutly argued by the counsel appearing for the complainant that when the RBI had advised the Bank not to take any coercive action during the lockdown period, the penalty charges for non maintenance of minimum balance should not have deducted by the Bank.  However when this Commission insisted for any RBI circular with respect to non imposition of penalty charges for non maintenance of minimum balance during covid-19 period, the same could not be produced by the complainant. When the complainant at the time of opening the current account for his business purpose had accepted for maintaining the minimum balance of Rs.5,000/-, now he cannot go behind and argue that no penalty should be imposed for non-maintaining of minimum balance as he is estopped by his conduct.  Therefore, when there is no restriction for the Bank to deduct penalty for non-maintaining of minimum balance during lockdown period as per any RBI guidelines we found no illegality on the part of Bank in deducting the penalty charges from the deposit made by the complainant on 28.04.2023.  In such facts and circumstances the act of the opposite party deducting the penalty charges for non-maintaining of minimum balance and other admissible charges could not be termed as deficiency in service.  Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite party and as against the complainant.

Point No.2:-

11. As we have held above that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled any relief from the opposite party.

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 31^st day of January 2024.

      -Sd-                                                        -Sd-                                                         -Sd-                                                                                                                 

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

List of document filed by the opposite party:-

     -Sd-                                                         -Sd-                                                         -Sd-

 MEMBER-II                                           MEMBER-I                                           PRESIDENT