By Smt.C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President
Complainant is aggrieved by the non-closure of his current account even after request and for charging exhorhitant amount on the ground of not maintaining minimum balance in the account.
1. Facts:
The complainant who is a businessman holds a current account bearing no.022205000654 in opposite party bank. He lost interest to continue the account and filed an application to opposite party on 12.5.2010 to close the account. But opposite party failed to consider the request . After filing the application, complainant approached opposite party three times and repeated the request to close the account. All his efforts were in vain. On 15.06.2010 he issued a registered notice to opposite party demanding to close the account within three days. Thereafter he issued a lawyer notice on 30.07.2010 requesting to close the account and stating his plight due to non-closure of his account. Opposite party send reply on 19.8.2010 stating baseless contentions and demanded
(2)
transaction charges for closing the account. On enquiries complainant came to know that opposite
party is charging Rs.11,000/- as transaction charges without knowledge of complainant from April 2010 onwards. That such act of opposite party is squeezing the money from the customer. That opposite party had not disclosed the levy of such charges at the time of opening the account. These charges are introduced without knowledge of the complainant. At the time of opening the account opposite party had received unfilled blank printed forms from the complainant who was not given any chance to peruse the same. It is further submitted that opposite party assured to exonerate the complainant from the newly introduced transaction charges if the complainant continues with the account. It is alleged that the act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence this complaint seeking to direct opposite party to close the current account and to relieve the complainant from paying the transaction charges demanded and for costs.
2. Opposite party filed version admitting that the complainant had started a current account in opposite party bank on 11.02.2009. It is stated that at the time of opening the account he had signed the current account opening form and other documents relating to the terms and conditions of the account. He had executed a customer undertaking for opening the account on the same day. He had also issued a cheque for Rs. 30,lacs in favor of opposite party bank on the same day.
As per the terms and conditions of current account facility the complainant is liable to maintain a monthly average balance of Rs.10,00,000/-(Ten Lakhs Rupees only) failing which opposite party is entitled to levy non-maintainance charges. The complainant is a businessman and is very well aware of all these aspects. The first cheque of 30,lakhs being a huge amount opposite party did not levy any charges for the first year. As the complainant is a good customer opposite party offered to relieve such charges if the account is continued . It is admitted that complainant filed an application to close the account on 12.05.2010. Opposite party then told the complainant that the said account is in negative balance and requested the complainant to clear the negative balance. Thereafter complainant send registered notice on 15.06.2010 to which reply was issued stating that opposite party is not in a position to close the account without clearing the negative balance. As per the schedule of charges to be levied the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to opposite party due to failure to keep monthly average balance of Rs. 10,00,000/- in the said account. Apart from this complainant is liable to pay transaction charges and tax to opposite party. Complainant is liable to pay Rs. 11,129.27, Rs.11679.64 and Rs.11,366.42 to the bank for the months 2010 February, March and April respectively. On 12.5.2010 when the complainant filed application to close the account the account was in negative balance as stated above. He was
(3)
liable to pay Rs.33,575.33/-. Complainant then send registered notice dated 30.7.2010 through lawyer. Opposite party send reply on 12.8.2010 stating these facts. The allegation that opposite party is adding Rs.11000/- as transaction charges without knowledge or information to complainant is denied as false. Opposite party also denies receiving unfilled printed forms without giving chance for perusal by complainant . Complainant had signed account opening form and other relevant documents after understanding the terms and conditions. That there is no deficiency and that complainant is not entitled to any reliefs.
4. Evidence consists of the proof affidavit filed by complainant and Exts A1 to A4 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit & Exts B1 to B6 marked for opposite party. After the case was taken for orders, the opposite party filed 1.A 247/2011 to reopen the case and receive a further document. The reply notice issued by opposite party on 12.08.2010 was produced along with this petition. The petition to reopen was allowed on condition that opposite party pay Rs.500/- as costs to the complaint . On 16.8.2011 the counsel for opposite party submitted that opposite party does not intend to pay cost. The petition to reopen was disposed accordingly
5. Points for consideration.
Whether opposite party is deficient
If so, reliefs and costs
6. The moot point that arises for analysation is whether opposite party is justified in demanding charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance in current account.
The case of opposite party is that complainant did not maintain minimum monthly average balance (MAB) of Rs.10 lakhs in his current account and that therefore complainant is bound to pay Rs.11,29.27/- in February 2010, Rs.11,079.64/- in March2010and Rs.11,366.42in April 2010 in order to get his account closed. It is admitted that complainant submitted an application to close his account on 12.05.2010. This letter is marked as Ext. A1. It is seen stated in this letter by the complainant that the reason he intends to close the account is because opposite party is charging exorbitantly for conducting transactions through the account. On Ext. A1 it is seen endorsed by opposite party that the application was received on 12.05.2010. Undisputedly opposite party has not closed the account. Complainant has averred and affirmed that after submitting the letter he went to the bank three times requesting to close the account. It is the case of complainant that opposite party
(4)
is charging Rs.11000/- as transaction charges from April 2010 onwards. Complainant has then issued a registered notice on 15.06.2010 and a further lawyer notice on 02.08.2010. Opposite party has not issued any reply to the application submitted by complainant on 12.05.2010 or the registered notice issued by him on 15.06.2010. Opposite party has issued reply only when a notice was issued by the complainant through his lawyer. Not responding to the customers letter is deficiency . Copy of the reply notice was produced by opposite party along with I.A.247/2011 which was a petition to reopen the case. Opposite party failed to pay the cost ordered and hence the document was not marked on the side of opposite party. However this document is also perused by us to arrive at a just decision. The reply notice is seen issued on 12.08.2010.It is seen stated in this reply that complainant has to clear the negative balance in his account in order to get his account closed. But opposite party has conveniently not stated the amount that has to be paid by the complainant. Evidently upto 12.08.2010 opposite party has not informed the complainant in reply to his repeated requests as to the amount that has to be paid by him to have his account closed as per his application submitted three months earlier.
According to opposite party complainant had agreed as per conditions of opening a current account, to maintain a monthly average balance (MAB) of Rs.10 lakhs. He defaulted this condition in the month of February, March ,April and May and so he is bound to pay transaction charges of Rs.11,129.27/-,Rs.11079.64/-and Rs.11,366.42/- respectively(total-Rs.33575.33/-). Ext. B2 is the account statement produced by opposite party for the period 01.01.2010 to31.07.2010. The statement of accounts of the month February does not show imposing of transaction charges as claimed by opposite party though the MAB in this month is less than 10 lakhs. The MAB in March is only Rs.11,000/-.Even then the accounts do not show levy of transaction charges. In April the average transactions done is much above 50 lakhs. There was deposit of about 80 lacs by various transactions and there was withdrawals also. In the end , on 30th April, Rs 3 lakhs was withdrawn and the remaining balance on this day was Rs.1,961.20/-. To this balance opposite party has added transaction charges of Rs.11,129.27/- and made the account to be with negative balance(Rs.9,168.07). Admittedly complainant had submitted request to close the account within almost two weeks of withdrawing the balance. If the customer plans to close his account the very next month how can he be expected to maintain a balance of 10 lakhs in the account?.Needless to say that he has to withdraw the balance held by him before requesting to close the account. Opposite party has added transaction charges and made the account with negative balance and then
(5)
harass the consumer for getting the account closed. Opposite party then has made a 'generous' offer to waive the transaction charges if the complainant continues with the account. Such imposition of charges is nothing but squeezing money of the customer. In the month of May, June and July the account is added with these transaction charges although there was no operations in the account. Exts B3 to B6 are again statements of accounts for the period April, May, June and July. Ext. B3 to Ext B6 are in another format. In Ext B3 (April) it is seen that on 30th April opposite party has entered the amount of transaction charges Rs.11,129.27/- as the transaction charges for the month 2010 February. Ext. B4 (statement of May) shows levying of transaction charges for the months 2010 April and also 2010 March. Ext B5 (statement of June) shows levy of transaction charges for April again. Ext.B6 (statement for the period July, 1.7.2010 to 31.7.2010)shows transaction charges for May and June. These documents are not authenticated as per Bankers book Evidence Act as amended. Complainant has pleaded and affirmed that opposite party demanded transaction charges of Rs.11,000/- to close the account from April 2010. On perusing the account statements it is clear that opposite party has not levied any transaction charges as claimed in the months of February ,and March .It is apparent that when the complainant requested for closing the account in early May, the opposite party has levied transaction charges in April to forbid the complainant from closing his account. The levy of transaction charges from February onwards is only a later twist. In April the transactions alone are above 80 lacs although the balance at the end of the month is Rs. 1961.20/-. So the case of the complainant that transaction charges were levied from 2010 April is more probable and acceptable. A customer can close his account only after withdrawing the balance. Levy of transaction charges and not allowing the customer to close his account is not comprehensible in any sense of banking practice.
Current account is meant to provide overdraft facility to the customer. Usually no interest is paid to the customer for the balance held in current account. The practice of directing the customer to maintain a minimum balance, failing which the customer has to pay bank charges will help the bank to earn something on the transactions done in the account. RBI has not prescribed any rate for the services done by the banks. The guidelines say that banks can impose reasonable charges. The levy of Rs.11,000/- per month for not maintaining MAB, in our view cannot be accepted as reasonable charges. That too the charges were levied only when complainant has disclosed his intention to discontinue the account. No one can be compelled to be a consumer. Opposite party cannot compel the complainant to continue his account by adopting the tactics of imposing transaction charges.
(6)
After withdrawing the major balance of 3 lakhs on 2010 April 30 the complainant has not made any transaction in his account .He then applied to close the account. Not allowing him to close the account ,in such circumstances is deficiency. In the light of the above discussions we are also able to hold that complainant is not liable to pay any transaction charges. We find opposite party deficient in service.
10. Point found in favor of complainant.
Point(ii)
Complainant prays to have his account closed and to exonerate him from payment of transaction charges. These prayers are only to be allowed. Complainant claims for costs and compensation. We consider that he is entitled to receive the amount outstanding as balance in his account on 2010 April 30 (Rs.1,961/-) together with compensation of Rs.5000/-towards the deficiency meted by him. He is also entitled to Rs.1000/- as costs.
11. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order opposite party to close the current account of the complainant and to pay to the complainant Rs.1,961 together with Rs.5000/- along with costs of Rs.1000/- within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dated this 5th day of September , 2011.
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
(7)
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to Ext. A4
Ext.A1 :Letter given to Opposite party by Complainant dated 02.05.2010
Ext.A2 : Registered letter with postal reciept issued to Opposite party by Complainant dated 14.06.2010
Ext.A3 :Lawyer notice issued to Opposite party along with postal reciept dated 30-07-2010
Ext.A4 :Acknowledgement Card
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to Ext.B2
Ext.B1 :Photo copy of Current Account opening Form dated 11.02.2009
Ext.B2 :Statement of Account dated 25-01-2011
Ext.B3 :Statement of transactions for the period 1.4.2010 to 30.4.2010
Ext.B4 :Statement of transactions for the period 1.5.2010 to 31.5.2010
Ext.B5 :Statement of transactions for the period 1.6.2010 to 30.06.2010
Ext.B6 :Statement of transactions for the period 1.7.2010 to 31.07.2010
C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN,
MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
