SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint for getting an order directing opposite party to repay Rs.25,260/-  with 12% interest from 01/09/2018 till realization of the amount together with Rs.1,00,000/-  towards compensation and cost of the complaint.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is an account holder of the OP bank bearing SB account No.046205000200 and there were so many transactions done by the complainant though this account.  As a proprietor of leading business group at Thalassery, the complainant done many transactions in every day.  At the time of taking the above said account he OP offered qualitative service in lowest service charge available in the market.  But contrary to the assurance given by the OP and in violation of the rules applicable substantial amount was deducted by the bank and it is untenable.

It is submitted that the OP deducted huge amount from the account of the complainant on one or another head.   The OP charged unauthorized and illegal amounts from the account of the complainant without any intimation or notice to the complainant.  It will come under the perview of deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.  The OP has charged Rs.25,260/- from the account of the complainant within a short period from 01/09/2018 to 08/03/2019.  On 02/03/2019 complainant had alerted the OP and requested was made to repay Rs.18900/- which was the amount collected during the period from 01/09/2018 to 13/12/2018.  The complainant had bitter experience from the OP and there was lack of communication from his end.  The complainant surprised over the action of the bank which collected a huge amount as charge without any information.  The complainant sent a lawyer notice on 14/03/2019 and the OP sent a letter dated 26/04/2019 as reply to the notice with false contentions, hence this complaint.

            In reply, OP entered appearance through counsel and contested the complaint.  In the version filed by OP, it is stated that this complaint is not maintainable and the complainant will not come under the definition of Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.  It is admitted that the complainant is an SB account holder and it is corrected to say that there were many transactions between the complainant and OP as stated in the complaint.  But it is incorrect to state that the OP offered qualitative service charge available in the market and the bank collected Rs.25,260/- from the customer without any reason.  “This OP submits that complainant was allowed to cash deposit transactions to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- per month as per his earlier status of the account.  But the complainant had deposited cash several times beyond the permissible limits.  Hence cash deposit charges were levied as per the norms of bank by the OP in the account of the complainant.”  Later he changed his account to Club Elite Ivy – RCA Platinum MAB.  This complainant had to maintain a minimum average balance in the account after changing the status of his account into Club Elite Ivy – RCA Platinum MAB. But the complainant did not keep the minimum balance in his account even after the change of status of account.  Hence the bank has levied charges since he has not maintained minimum balance     during the relevant period.  So this OP is not liable to return charges    levied upon    the customer since the terms and conditions are not followed by    the      complainant”.  The complainant is not entitled to refund of any amount as stated in the complaint and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            At the evidence stage both parties led their evidence.  Complainant filed  chief-affidavit, examined as Pw1 and marked Ext.A1 to A3.  On the side of OP, Relationship

Manger of OP filed chief-affidavit, examined as Dw1, marked Ext.B1 to B5.  After that the counsel of OP filed argument note.

            Only dispute which is to be decided by us is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank for collecting Rs.25,260/- on different dates from the account of the complainant within a period from 01/09/2018 to 08/03/2019, without any information of the complainant.

                        There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant is an account holder of the OP bank.  Further it is a fact that the OP bank has charged Rs. 25,260/- from the complainant’s account within a period from 01/09/2018 to 08/03/2019.

            Complainant alleged that charging of Rs.25,260/- from his account within a short period from 01/09/2018 to 08/03/2019 by OP without his consent and without given any terms and  condition at the time of joining the account amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence he wants to refund the amount with interest and compensation.

            OP in their version stated that “this OP submits that complainant was allowed to cash deposit transactions to a tune of Rs.10,00,000/- per month as per his earlier status of the account.  But the complainant had deposited cash several times beyond the permissible limits.  Hence cash deposit charges were levied as per the norms of bank by the OP in the account of the complainant.”  Later he changed his account to Club Elite Ivy – RCA Platinum MAB.  This complainant had to maintain a minimum average balance in the account after changing the status of his account into Club Elite Ivy – RCA Platinum MAB. But the complainant did not keep the minimum balance in his account even after the change of status of account.  Hence the bank has levied charges since he has not maintained minimum balance during the relevant period.  So this OP is not liable to return charges levied upon the customer since the terms and conditions are not followed by the complainant”.

            It is a fact that on 19/03/2019 complainant has closed the account with OP bank.  OP produced Ext.B1 to B3 to prove their contention, that as per the norms, OP bank is entitled to collect he amount as charges from the complainant’s account.  In Ext.B2 it is stated that “chargeable services – cash deposit at Base location – combined free limit of 10 transactions per month for cash withdrawal base and cash deposit base beyond which Rs.50/- per transaction”.  Further in Ext.B3 MAB – platinum, terms specifies MAB requirements for platinum Rs.5,00,000/- charges 2500/- if MAB > 50% and 5000 if MAB<50%.  OP contended that as per the terms and conditions in Ext.B2 and B3, they have levied the amount as alleged by the complainant.  Hence they are not bound to refund the said charges.

            It is correct that as per the above terms OP could levied charges if complainant violated the above conditions.  Here question to be decided whether OP had given information about the terms and conditions, and given “it to the complainant before joining the prior account and current account.  Complainant during the evidenced time vehemently denied about the knowledge of such terms specified in the account.”  Moreover he deposed that he does not know English language which is evident from Ext.B3, ie all terms are written in English language moreover it is only a photocopy.  The learned counsel of complainant objected Ext.B3 as it is a photocopy.  But OP bank has not produced the original of Ext.B3.  Moreover in the customer declaration portion the signature of the account holder is not seen.  Ext.B2 is also a separate sheet.  In which also signature of account holder is not seen.  OP failed to prove that they informed about those conditions to the account holder (complainant herein) before joining the said accounts.   Moreover closing of that account on 19/03/2019 itself shows that complainant had no knowledge about the terms of deduction of such charges.

            As per the above discussions, we are of the view that, OP bank was deficient in service for not supplying the terms and conditions to the complainant before joining that account and not informing for deduction of charges from the complainant’s account.

            In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Opposite party bank is directed to refund Rs.25,260/- with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5000 towards cost of the complaint to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.  Failing which Rs.25,260+ Rs.10,000 will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint till realization.  Complainant can execute the order as per provision in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1- Account statement

A2- Lawyer notice

A3- Reply notice

B1-Current account form

B2- Prepaid current account schedule of charges

B3- Variant charge current account

B4- Reply of legal notice issued by complainant

B5- Account Statement

Pw1- Complainant

Dw1-OP

     Sd/                                                                                   Sd/                                                        Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                            MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forwarded by order/

Assistant Registrar