Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/100

K V MATHEW - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, FEDERAL BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.100/2014

JUDGMENT DATED :31.01.2015

 

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.No.186/2011 on the file of CDRF, Kollam order dated : 21.01.2014)

PRESENT

 

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIALMEMBER

SMT.A.RADHA                               : MEMBER

SMT.SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

APPELLANT

 

          K.V.Mathew,

          Kavuvila,

EMP Cottage,

Ampipoika P.O

Kundara, Kollam

Rep.by his power of

Attorney holder,

Sri.Ganapathy.P.S

“Vindya”, Perumpuzha – 691 504

Kollam

 

VS

RESPONENTS

 

          1. The Manager,

          The Federal Bank Ltd,

          Kundara Branch,

          Kollam – 691 501

 

2. The General Manager,

The Federal Bank,

Registered Office,

Alwaye, Kerala

Pin – 683 101

(By Adv.Sri.S.Reghu kumar)        

 

 

JUDGMENT

         

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR     : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          Appellant was the complainant in CC.No.186/2011 in the CDRF, Kollam. The complainant was the holder of a savings bank account in the Kundara branch of the federal bank, the first opposite party, since 03.08.99. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was having account balance of Rs.1673/- as on 13.01.2010. Thereafter there was no transaction in his account. On 02.06.2011 he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- in his account.  But on 03.06.2011 he had account balance of Rs.99, 772/- only as per the pass book. On enquiry the complainant was told that amounts were deducted from his account for not maintaining minimum account balance. But that was done without informing the complainant and violating the principles of natural justice. This amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant sought payment of the entire Rs.1,00,000/- along with compensation.

          2.      The opposite parties filed joint version and contended before the consumer forum that there was no consumer dispute involved between the parties. They have done everything in accordance with banking principles and practice. The perusal of the account of the complainant would show that from the initial period itself he had not been maintaining minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in his account. Though he deposited Rs.1500/- in his account on 13.01.2010 even before that period he was not maintaining minimum balance in his account On 31.03.2009 the balance in his account was only Rs.199/-. That amount was deducted on 30.06.2009 for not maintaining the minimum balance. Thereafter there was no balance in his account from 30.06.2009 onwards. Though he deposited Rs.50, 172/- on 13.01.2010, he withdrew an amount of Rs.50,000/- on the same day leaving a balance of Rs.173/- only. Amounts were deducted on various occasions for not maintaining the minimum balance. On 31.03.2011 the balance in his account was only Rs.3/-. On 02.06.2011 he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- but an amount of Rs.231/- was deducted for not maintaining minimum balance during the preceding period. So the net credit balance became Rs.99, 772/-. There after on 02.02.2011 he withdrew an amount of Rs.97, 500/-. All along the complainant was knowing that the bank was making statutory deductions. The bank has displayed notice on the notice board in the bank premises notifying the need for maintaining minimum balance in the account of customers and cautioning about debiting of amount for not maintaining minimum balance. The pass book issued to customers also carries necessary instructions in this regard. Individual notice to customers is not required. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          3.      Before the consumer forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.P1 to P3 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite parties and Exts. D1 to D3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. The consumer forum found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the complainant. The only question that arises for decision is whether there is any error in the findings of the consumer forum.

          4.      Admittedly, the complainant is the holder of an SB account in the first opposite party branch of the federal bank limited. His grievance is that when he deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.06.2011 only a cash balance of Rs.99,772/- was credited in his pass book. It is explained that since he was not maintaining minimum cash balance in his account as per banking norms, the balance amount was deducted by the bank. The further grievance of the complainant is that the deduction is done without intimating him and against the principles of natural justice. But it appears from Ext.P1 pass book itself that the complainant was informed about the requirement of maintaining minimum cash balance in the account. It is mentioned in the pass book that incidental charges will be levied if the prescribed minimum balance is not maintained at all times. In Ext.P1 pass book the minimum balance is mentioned as Rs.100/-. But according to the opposite parties, the amount is subsequently raised to Rs.1000/-. Ext.D2 accounts and the passbook itself show that there are times when the complainant made deposits but during several periods the deposits fell far below, the required minimum balance in this account. When a customer deposits money the bank is rendering service by keeping the money in safe deposit. The bank also pays interest for the amount in the account. Deductions as per banking norms are made as consideration for the service rendered and that cannot be termed as deficiency in service. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as the complainant had notice of the requirement of maintaining minimum balance in his account. In short, there is no error in the findings of the consumer forum. The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.2000/- to the opposite parties.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR   : JUDICIAL MEMBER

A.RADHA  : MEMBER

SANTHAMMA THOMAS      : MEMBER

 

BE/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

 REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 SISUVIHARLANE

VAZHUTHACAUD

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.100/2014

JUDGMENT

DATED :31.01.2015

 

                                                                                                                                                  BE/