By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,
1. Complainant who is a practising advocate holds a savings Bank account with opposite party from August, 2002. Thereafter his account number was changed. It is stated that the complainant was not satisfied with service of opposite party and so the transaction was kept as minimum. On 29-4-2008, he found that the balance was forfeited by opposite party for the reason that complainant did not maintain minimum balance in his account. It is alleged that opposite party forfeited the balance without informing complainant. Complainant issued notice to opposite party through a lawyer. That instead of tendering apology and correcting the mistake opposite party had stated in the notice that after core banking was introduced minimum balance was re-fixed as Rs.1,000/- instead of Rs.500/-. That this matter was notified in the notice board of the bank. It is submitted that Bank ought to have informed by a post card before forfeiting Rs.300/- from the Savings Bank account. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service. 2. Opposite party filed version admitting that complainant is holding Savings Bank account in the Bank from 2002 onwards. It is submitted that Opposite party Bank (State Bank of Travancore_ initiated Core Banking facilities. That service charges were revised with effect from 01-10-2007. This was informed to all customers by way of affixing the notice on Bank Notice Board and also through it's websites. That Core banking facility was introduced in the said branch, Melattur from 17-8-2005. Till then all the service charges were collected/calculated manually and debited/credited to the concerned accounts of customers. After the implementation of core banking all these things are done by computer and as per core banking solution which is a package implemented by state Bank of Travancore. Till 01-10-2007 the minimum balance limit for cheque facility accounts was Rs.500/-. 3. That complainant had no transactions with the bank from 26-12-2005 to 15-4-2008. On 31-5-2005 complainant had only Rs.77/- as balance. Later on 26-8-2005 complainant remitted Rs.1,000/-. The computer system debited Rs.55/- as service charges as per old rate. On 30-9-2007 complainant had only Rs.569/- as balance. It was below the minimum to be maintained. So on 30-12-2007 computer system debited Rs.300/- from Rs.569/- and the balance was Rs.269/-. Again on 31-3-2008 the computer system debited the entire balance. So total Rs.624/- was debited from the account. That the Branch is maintaining more than 9000 accounts and sending notices and post cards to each and every customer is snot practical. Detailed facts were stated in the reply notice and also offered that bank was ready to give refund of the said amount as part of keeping cordial relation if the complainant gave a request for the same. That opposite party has already given credit of Rs.624/- as offered though complainant failed to make request. That there is no deficiency in service. 4. Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 and A2 marked for him. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 and B2 marked for opposite party. 5. The grievance of the complainant is that opposite party illegally collected Rs.300/- without prior notice as charges for not maintaining minimum balance. The consistent case of opposite party as stated in Ext.A2 reply notice, pleadings and affidavit is that after introduction of core banking system the service charges and such matters are being debited/collected by the computer self operating system and that from 01-10-2007 the minimum balance limit has been refixed as Rs.1,000/-. That Bank had informed it's customers about the change by displaying on the Bank notice board and through it's website. Complainant does not have a case that the charges were collected when his account had maintained the required minimum balance. His case is that he was not sufficiently informed before debiting the amount of Rs.300/-. Relying upon Ext.B1 which is a copy of notice, opposite party contended that such notice was displayed on the Bank notice board. In our view a customer should be vigilant of his account and the transactions in his account. The entire burden to check whether there is sufficient balance cannot be shifted to opposite party. His contention that Bank could have informed every customer by post card does not find favour with us. In Ext.A2 reply notice Bank has explained in detail the factual matrix and the changes introduced after core banking. As per Ext.B2 account statement Bank has already given credit of Rs.624/- which was collected towards such charges for not maintaining sufficient balance. The monetary loss of complainant is therefore redressed. We do not find any merits in the contentions raised by complainant. 6. In the result we dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.
Dated this 22nd day of May, 2009.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 and A2 Ext.A1 : Registered Lawyer Notice dated, 24-5-2008 issued by complainant's advocate to opposite party. Ext.A2 : Copy of reply notice dated, 07-6-2008 by opposite party's advocate to complainant's advocate. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2 Ext.B1 : Copy of Notice. Ext.B2 : Computer print of statement of account of complainant's account given by opposite party.
Sd/- C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT
Sd/- MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/- MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER
......................C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI | | 
