BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 313 of 2020.                                                                       

                                                            Date of Institution :    07.12.2020.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    10.05.2023.

Mohan Lal Singal son of Sh. Banarsi Dass, resident of Ward No.17, House No.17, Rajiv Nagar, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa Sole Prop. of M/s Singla Trading Co. Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

1. Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, near Gandhi Chowk, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.

2.  The General Manager, Union Bank of India, Zonal Office Chandigarh, Hotel Shivalik, First Floor, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh, Pin Code – 160017.

...…Opposite parties.

            Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                  

                 SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………MEMBER.           

Present:       Sh. Ishant Dua, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for opposite parties.

.

ORDER

                   The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as Ops).

2.                In brief, the case of complainant is that he is sole proprietor of M/s Singla Trading Company, Mandi Dabwali, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa and is having current account bearing No. 637101010050292 with op no.1. That complainant took the statement of his current bank account for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2020 on 03.06.2020 for filing Income Tax Return with Income Tax Department and after that he came to know that an amount of Rs.22,000/- has been deducted/ debited illegally from his account on account of minimum balance charges for the period 18.09.2018 to 18.07.2019 and said amount was deducted in eleven installment which is wrong, against law and facts. It is further averred that no message/ information was given or conveyed to complainant in this regard which is necessary as per law while facility of message alert was hired by complainant from the bank and charges of this facility were deducted timely from his account. That no notice or written information was served upon the complainant regarding the minimum balance in the said account which is also necessary as per law. It is further averred that complainant had moved an application to the op no.1 on 06.07.2020 for refund of above mentioned amount but till today no reply has been sent to the complainant and op no.1 has not refunded the amount. The complainant also sought certified copy of notice and message etc. through RTI but no information has been supplied to him till today and an appeal is also pending before the op no.2 in this regard. The complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 23.10.2020 to the ops but to no effect and the act and conduct of the ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, ops appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections regarding non serving of prior notice, estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, jurisdiction and that complaint is hopelessly time barred and is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, it is submitted that complainant himself has opened his current account with answering op on 16.08.2016 and firm M/s Shiveen Traders Mandi Dabwali has put his introduction on the account opening farm who was also having current account with the answering ops. At that time all the terms and conditions of the account were read over and explained to the complainant and complainant who is also educated person accepted it to be true and correct and put his signatures on the account farm. The account of the complainant has been opened under UCCAN Code and thereafter he has been operating this account as per his convenience and as per his requirements. It is further submitted that as per norms of this scheme in which the account has been opened the complainant was required to maintain minimum balance of Rs.50,000/- only failing which op bank has right to penalizes the complainant and have to charge minimum balance charges from the complainant. The complainant failed to maintain minimum balance in this account accordingly minimum balance charges have been debited to the account of the complainant. This fact has been in the knowledge of the complainant that minimum balance charges are being charged from the complainant in his account and he has also been operating his account and has been taking copy of statement of account from the op from time to time. The amount on account of minimum balance has been charged in a lawful manner and that too as per RBI instructions. It is further submitted that complainant himself has opened this account under UCCAN Code and had enjoyed with the same but on 30.07.2019 the complainant moved an application with the op no.1 and requested him for the conversion of current account to General account. Accordingly the Branch Manager of op no.1 has changed the code of the account from UCCAN to CAZEN.  Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

4.       The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C24.

5.       On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Prahlad Singh, Branch Manager as Ex. R1 and copies of documents Ex.R2 and Ex.R3.

6.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file.

7.       It is an admitted fact between the parties that complainant was having a current account with the op no.1 bank for firm M/s Singla Trading Company. From the copy of statement of account of complainant Ex.C2, it is evident that total amount of Rs.22,000/- was deducted from the account of complainant in eleven transactions of Rs.2000/- each on account of minimum balance charges. In this regard, ops have asserted that complainant was required to maintain minimum balance of Rs.50,000/- failing which bank has right to penalize the complainant and have to charge minimum balance charges from the complainant. In this regard during the course of arguments, learned counsel for ops have also placed on file Instruction Circular No. 9315 dated 22.06.2012 of the Union Bank of India which is relating to Union Classic Current Account (UCCA) enhancement in scheme features and revised features, the perusal of which reveals that penalty for non maintenance of minimum balance of Rs.50,000/- is Rs. two thousands per month. Therefore, deduction of above said amount being penalty on account of minimum balance charges is as per rules of the ops’ bank and therefore, it cannot be said as illegal at all. In so far as contention of complainant that no message/ information was given to the complainant for deduction of said charges despite the fact that charges of this facility were also deducted is concerned, we also found no substance in this contention because complainant has not proved on record that he was having the facility of message alert from the ops bank during the period of above said deduction of the amount of Rs.22,000/- and from the statement of account Ex.C2 itself it is proved that SMS charges of Rs.15.39 were deducted from his account only on 14.09.2019, 14.12.2019 and 14.3.2020 which proves the fact that complainant availed the said facility from the ops bank for the first time in the month of September, 2019 i.e. after deduction of charges on account of minimum balance. There is no dispute with the decisions of Hon’ble Delhi State Commission in case titled as Central Bank of India & Anr. Versus Raj Kumar, 2006(2) CPJ 122 and decision of Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh State Commission, Shimla in case titled as State Bank of India vs. M.R. Sagrik and anr. 2007 (2) CPJ 423 relied upon by learned counsel for complainant in which it has been held that every customer should be informed personally regarding levy of any service charges. However, in the present case the complainant has wrongly asserted that no message/ information was given to the complainant despite the fact that facility of message alert was hired by complainant from the bank because it is proved on record that complainant availed the said facility only in the month of September, 2019 i.e. after deductions of above said amount on account of minimum balance charges.  

8.       In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced:                                       Member                President,

Dated: 10.05.2023.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                     Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK