Rana Dutta,

Resident of 50/2, ‘L’ Road Belgachia,

Howrah-711108……………………………………….COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         The Manager,

            The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., 

21, Grand Trunk Road(South),,

            Howrah – 711101.

2.        Ms Gitanjali Chatterjee,

           Branch Deputy Manager,

          21, Grand Tank Road (South), Howrah-711101..-----------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

It is the specific grievance of the Complt. Rana Dutta, that O.P.s have deducted  unlawfully and arbitrarily balance based charges totaling Rs. 4994.40 for thrice from his savings account duly maintained by him since a decade, without giving any prior intimation.

Brief facts of the case is that complainant maintained a savings A/c being No. 032-101115-006 with O.P., Hongkong  Shanhai Banking Corporation Ltd., for a long time.  The said account was converted to one, HSBC Advance account with a condition to maintain minimum balance of Rs. 1,00,000, including all other kinds of deposits with the said bank.  But suddenly on 11.07.12,  Complt. found that bank had deducted Rs. 1654.50 on 20.11.2011, Rs 1654.50 on 20.01.12 and Rs. 1685.40 on 20.04.12 towards that balance based charges without giving him any prior intimation.  And on enquiry, he came to know that O.P. had raised the minimum balance , to be maintained for the said account, from Rs 1,00,000 to Rs 3,00,000/-.  Immediately on 11.07.12, he sent letter to O.P.s requesting them for the refund of the said deducted amount of Rs 4994.40 and also he applied for the closure of his savings A/c vide annexure  ‘A’ & ‘B’ , Pg-5 & 6.  And on 22.08.12, Complt. received a reply letter from O.P.s dt. 14.08.12 vide annexure ‘C’.  In that letter, O.P.s stated that in the month of May, 2011, the information regarding the increase in minimum balance was intimated to the Complt. and so, no refund can be made to the Complt.  But it is alleged by the Complt. that no such correspondence was received by him from the O.P.s.   It was also mentioned by O.P.s in their letter dt. 14.08.12, annexure ‘C’ that such information was provided through tariff guides displayed at their branches and bank’s website.  But on the ground that he was never informed by O.P.  by a specific manner about such increase in minimum balance which gives him entitlement to the refund of such amount of Rs. 4,994.40/- vide annexure ‘D’, page 7, he wrote a letter to the O.P.    But no refund was made and O.P.s remained silent, reminder letters were sent by the Complt. to O.P.s on 31.10.12 & 16.01.13 vide annexure ‘E, & F’.  Finally on 02.04.13 , Complt. approached the O.P.s personally and submitted one letter, vide annexure ‘G’ Pg-12 with the same request and he came to know that in all other cases, balance based charges, deducted earlier by the bank, were refunded except in the case of the Complt.   And as per the advice of the Relationship Manager, Complt. met O.P. 2 who said that the refund depends on and varies from case to case and in the case of the Complt., no refund can be made.  Accordingly to the Complt. it further shows that O.P.s had adopted unfair trade practice as the rule should be equal for all customers of a particular category.  And another official refusal letter was sent by the bank on 08.04.13 vide annexure ‘H’.  It was also brought to the notice of the O.P.1 on 17.05.13 who assured him that he would look into the matter within one week but nothing happened.  Finding no other alternative and being frustrated, Complt. filed this instant petition praying for a direction to be given upon the O.P.s to refund Rs. 4994.40 together with interest @ 15% p.a., to pay 30,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5000/- as litigation cost along with other relief or reliefs.  Notice was served upon O.P.s.  But none appears for the O.P.s even after receiving the summons of this Forum.  Accordingly, the case was heard exparte.

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

            Complt. has also filed one affidavit in support of his pleadings.  We have carefully gone through the annexure filed by the Complt.  In the letter dt. 14.08.12 & 08.04.13, O.P.s have categorically stated that for the HSBC Advance A/c, minimum balance to be maintained by the customers is Rs. 3,00,000/- and it was communicated to the complt. through a letter in the month of May, 2011 and also through their tariff guides displayed at their Branches and on the Bank’s website.  It is also our common knowledge that every bank displays their all information regarding interest rate, minimum blance, loan facility etc. though the electronic displayed board, installed in their branches and if any customer have any quarry about any such information , he/she can be the concerned manager.   But in this case, Complt. has considered himself as a special category A/c holder as he holds HSBC Advance A/c.  And in most of the private banks, there is one Relationship Manager, so as the O.P.   At least one telephonic massage or an SMS should have been shared by the O.P.s with the Complt.  And this is also not fair if O.P.s, at all, treated different customers of a specific category, in a different manner, if O.P.s had , at all, refunded the deducted amount for not maintaining minimum balance of Rs. 3,00,000/- for per calendar quarter for an HABC Advance A/c.  But all these statements of the Complt made against O.P.s have remained unchallenged and uncontroverted  as O.P.s have not appeared or filed any W/v.  But Complt. filed an affidavit in support of his allegations made out in his petition against O.P.s.  Accordingly to our opinion, as in the letter dt. 11.07.12, Complt. applied for the closure of his savings A/c in question and he mentioned ‘Now closed’ about his such A/c in his letter dt. 27.07.12, O.P.s have refused to refund the deducted amount of Rs. 4994.40 to the Complt.   O.P.s have forgotten entirely that consumer satisfaction is their only capital for running their business smoothly that can only lead to the flourishing of their business.  Moreover, they did not even care to appear before this Forum even after receiving the notices of the Forum which shows that O.P.s have nothing to put forward in their favour.  And we find that the Complt. is entitled to the refund. 

         Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  137 of 2013 ( HDF 137 of 2013 )  be  allowed exparte  against   O.Ps.  with cost.

      The O.P.s are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs. 4994.40 to the Complainant’s S/B A/c No. 11726847521 IFS Code : SBIN003412, Branch Code 03412 within one month from this order.  The Complt. do get an award of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1,000/- as litigation cost.  The O.P.s are directed to credit this amount Rs. 3000/- to the Complt.’s S/B A/c mentioned earlier held with  State Bank of India within one month from this order, i.d. this amount of Rs. 3,000/- shall carry an interest @ 10% p,a. till actual credit of the same.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

 ( Jhumki Saha )                         ( P. K. Chatterjee )                (T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member,                                     Member,                                President,

 C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                     C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                 C.D.R.F.,Howrah                                      

                                          .