Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/15/60

Jas Preet Singh & Another - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

07 Jan 2016

ORDER

ORDER

          MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT

                             Sh. Jaspreet Singh and Smt. Kamaljit Kaur have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’) praying therein that the O.P. be directed to:-

i)       Refund the whole amount deducted by it alongwith

          interest @ 18% P.A. w.e.f. the date of deductions

          made till realization,

 

ii)      Pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation, on account of mental agony, harassment and emotional distress suffered by them due to negligence & unprofessional conduct and working of the officials of the O.P. and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses alongwith any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit, according to the facts & circumstances of the case.

 

2.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that they are having a joint saving account bearing No. 04410100012957 with the O.P. bank for the last several years. The O.P. had deducted a sum of Rs.1280/- from the said account without giving any intimation to them. Whenever, they visited the O.P. for updating the pass-book, its dealing hand did not update the same stating that the machine was out of order. They had come to know from reliable sources i.e. from ‘the Tribune’ column—‘CONSUMERS BEWARE’ dated 8.6.2014 that deduction of such charges by the bank without intimation is not only discriminatory, unethical but is also illegal. The said act of the O.P. amounts to violation of transparency, breach of trust & right to information. As the O.P. had deducted a sum of Rs.1280/- from their account on different dates, unilaterally, without any prior intimation to them, as such, they made a complaint to the Chief Lead Manager-cum-Nodal Officer of the said bank on 16.6.2014, but the reply sent by the said officer is wrong, misleading and not satisfactory because it was stated in the said reply that the said charges were levied by the computer system and the O.P. was not bound to refund the same. Hence, this complaint.

 

3.                On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written version taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that it is defective one and does not lie; that the complainants are not ‘consumer’ of the O.P. and have no locus standi & no cause of action to file the instant complaint; that the complainants have not come to the Forum with clean hands and have concealed the material facts from this Forum and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. On merits, it is stated that in fact, there is requirement of keeping a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in the account and to maintain the account properly under the rules. A sum of Rs.1280/- was deducted from the account of the complainant, correctly & validly, for not keeping the minimum balance of Rs.1000/-. It is further stated that the complainants had never turned up to get their passbook updated. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have also been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal thereof, the same being without any merit.

 

4.                On being called upon to do so, Sh. Jaspreet Singh, complainant No.1 tendered his affidavit & photocopies of documents Ex. C2 to C9 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Sh. Krishan Kumar Khattar, Sr. Manager, of the O.P. Bank tendered his affidavit Ex. OP1/1 & photocopy of transaction inquiry Ex. OP1/2 and closed the evidence.

 

5.                We have heard Sh. Jaspreet Singh, who appeared for himself and also as Attorney of the complainant No. 2, and the learned counsel for the O.P. alongwith Sh. Krishan Kumar Khattar, Sr. Manager, of the O.P. Bank and have also gone through the record of the file carefully.

 

6.                The first grievance of the complainants is that whenever, they visited the O.P. for updating the pass-book, the dealing hand did not update the same with the plea that the machine is out of order. In rebuttal, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that the officials of the O.P. never refused to update the pass-book, and the allegation leveled to that effect by the complainants is baseless.

 

                   It may stated that to prove the aforesaid allegation the complainants have not placed on record any documentary evidence. Even in the letter dated 16.6.2014 (Ex.C3), which was addressed by the complainants to the Chief Lead District Manager-cum- Nodal Officer of the UCO bank, it has nowhere been complained that the officials of the O.P. had refused to update their pass book. Thus, the above said grievance of the complainants is found to be without any force.

 

7.                The second grievance of the complainants is that the O.P. had not informed them about maintenance of minimum balance in their account and had deducted a sum of Rs.1280/- from their account without any intimation to them.      Sh. Jaspreet Singh, complainant No.1, who also appeared on behalf of the complainant No.2, submitted that after reading the article published in the newspaper dated 8.6.2014 (Ex. C2) under the heading—‘CONSUMERS BEWARE’ they came to know that it is the duty of the bank to inform an account holder regarding the requirement of maintaining the minimum balance in the account and the penalty to be incurred for not ensuring the same and also to inform the account holder before deducting any amount on that account. Thereafter, they had written a letter dated 16.6.2014 (Ex. C3) to the O.P. asking therein as to how it had deducted a sum of Rs.1280/- from their account, without any prior intimation to them, in violation of RBI guidelines, but vide letter dated 25.6.2014(Ex. C6), the O.P. has informed them that the bank is not duty bound to refund the same. As such, the O.P. has committed deficiency in rendering service and the reliefs, as prayed for, by them in the complaint, may be awarded. To this effect, the learned counsel for the O.P. submitted that at the time of opening of an account, the concerned official of the bank duly informs the account holder(s) regarding requirement of maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.1000/- in the saving account. As per the instructions issued by the Banking Codes and Standards Board of India, the O.P. bank has even displayed the instructions regarding maintaining of minimum balance in the saving bank account, on the notice board.  Therefore, the allegation made by the complainants to that effect is false & baseless. He further submitted that the bank has duly replied the letter dated 16.6.2014 received from the complainants vide its letter dated 25.6.2014 (Ex. C6) whereby they were informed that as per RBI guidelines, imposing of charges for non-maintaining minimum balance has been withdrawn recently and in this case, the charges were leveled prior to 2010, which the bank is not liable to refund. He further submitted that even otherwise, the present complaint, which has been filed in the year 2015, regarding refund of Rs.1280/-, which were levied from time to time during the years from 2005 to 2010, is not maintainable, being barred by time and is liable to be dismissed.

 

                   On perusal of the copy of the passbook of the saving account of the complainants (Ex.C9) and the copy of transaction inquiry (Ex.OP1/2) it is evident that the charges of Rs.1280/- qua non-maintenance of minimum balance, were levied by the O.P., from time to time, during the period from 22.7.2005 to 27.12.2010, but the complainants have filed the instant complaint in the year 2015, for refund of the said charges. It may be stated that if the complainants had any grievance regarding charging of the said amount, then as per Section 24A of the Act, they could have filed a complaint within a period of two years, from the date on which the cause of action had arisen. Since the instant complaint has been filed much after the expiry of the prescribed period of two years, therefore, it is hopelessly barred by time and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. Even on merits,  the complaint is liable to be dismissed because the complainants have failed to place on record any guidelines/instructions issued by the RBI, prevalent during the relevant period i.e. from the year 2005 to 2010, to the effect that the bank was duty bound to inform the account holder before levying any charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance in the account, especially when, admittedly, the O.P. vide  its letter dated 25.6.2014(Ex. C6) had informed them that as per the RBI guidelines, levying of charges for non-maintaining of minimum balance has been withdrawn recently and that since the charges levied in their account pertained to the period prior to 2010, therefore, the bank is not bound to refund the amount of Rs.1280/- deducted from their saving account on account of non-maintenance of minimum balance.

 

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear costs of their own.

 

9.                The certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.

 

ANNOUNCED                                                                       (NEENA SANDHU)

Dated 07.01.2016                                        PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                (SHAVINDER KAUR)

                                                                     MEMBER.