This is a discussion on Axis bank within the Banking forums, part of the Financial Services category; Consumer Case No.440 /2009 Between:- Mr. Parchuri Chandra Sekhara Rao, S/o. Rama Krishnaiah, H.No.10-363-1-13, Settyreddynagar, Near St. Duke’s High School, ...
- 02-18-2010, 11:42 AM #1Senior Member
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Consumer Case No.440 /2009
Mr. Parchuri Chandra Sekhara Rao,
S/o. Rama Krishnaiah,
Near St. Duke’s High School,
Hyderabad – 500047. ….Complainant
1. Branch Manager,
D.No. 5-3-338/3, LPF House,
Secunderabad – 500003.
2. Managing Director,
Trishul, 3rd Floor, Samarateshwar Temple,
Law Garden, Ellis Bridge,
Ahmedabad – 380006. ... Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of the complainant in party in person and Sri K.B.Ramanna Dora, Advocate for the Opposite party and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
O R D E R
(per Hon’ble Member, Smt Lakshmi Makena, on behalf of the Bench)
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of C.P. act 1986, to direct the opposite parties
a. To pay back the amount of Rs.837/- (i.e.,387/-cheque return charges, Rs.150/- penalty imposed by the opposite party and Rs.300/- SBI cheque bounce charges) with an interest of 18% p.a.
b. to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-towards costs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had opened an account with opposite party’s bank for depositing commissions by Bajaj Allianz on policies. The complainant submitted that the account was opened in the scheme of Saving Bank/Salary account in February, 2006 but the opposite parties had changed the scheme to Salary Power Plus without any prior intimation. It is further submitted that the opposite party had deducted Rs.150/- by stating that if the transactions are more than thrice in a month they impose fine and an account of this a cheque for Rs.270/- was bounced humiliation to the complainant. The complainant further submitted that being fed up with opposite party’s behaviour, approached the alternate consumer disputes Redressal Cell. The opposite party No.1 appeared before the cell defended their acts and refused to refund the penalties. There upon the Redressal Cell advised the complainant to approach the Consumer Forum. Hence the complaint.
3. The opposite party in their defence admitted that the complainant is holding an account bearing No.068010100345385, under SBSAL-SAPPL Scheme opened during February, 2006.
It is further submitted that a sum of Rs.150/-was deducted from his account in accordance with the terms governing S.B. Accounts. In this connection, the undertaking given by the complainant in the Account opening form could be relied upon (Ex.B1) and it reads as under “I/we have and understood the terms and conditions relating to various services, I have specifically requested have from UTI Bank Ltd., “I accept & agree to be bound by the terms and conditions including those limiting excluding the banks liability. I understood that the bank may at its absolute discretion discontinue any of the services completely or partially with out any notice to me. I agree that the Bank may debit my account for service charges as applicable from time to time.” Accordingly, it is submitted that as per schedule of charges supplied to the complaint has made 3 Branch transactions above the free limit allowed to the account (09) and hence the charges of Rs.150/- were debited to the account on 30-03-2009.
It is submitted that as per the schedule of charges applicable to the particular savings account category, the number of free branch transactions allowed to the said account were 9 free customer induced transactions per quarter. Subsequent transactions will be charges @ Rs.50/- per transaction. In the subject case, the complainant has made 12 number of branch transactions above the free limit allowed and hence a sum of Rs.150/- was charged towards transaction charges for excess 3 transactions out of 12 transactions made by him.
It is further submitted that the a cheque No.676310 issued by the complaint for Rs.270-96 was received in clearing on 30-03-2009 and it was dishonoured for the reason “insufficient funds” as the Balance available in the account was only sum of Rs.270.48 as on 30-03-2009. As such a sum of Rs.387/- (Rs.350/- cheque return charges service plus service tax there on) has debited to the account.
It is submitted that there is no deficiency of services on the part of the opposite party Bank in debiting the customer’s account under the mandate given by the complaint in the account opening form itself. In this connection, the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Archana M.Kanth Vs. Canara Bank and another 2003(1) CPR 86/2003(2) CLT(SC) 267 is cited wherein, it was held that Banks have got a right to impose charges.
The complainant is not entitled for any releifs and more so, the reliefs as the complainant are speculative, imaginary and frivolous.
4. The complainant and opposite parties filed their evidence affidavits. Exs.A1 to A14 are marked for the complainant and Exs. B1 to B4 are marked for the opposite party.
5. Points for Consideration are :-
I. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and
I. Whether the complainant is entitled for the releifs as prayed for?
II. To what relief?
6. The complainant and opposite party filed written arguments and also submitted oral arguments.
7. Points I & II:- Perused the material on record. The 1st contention of the complainant is that the opposite party had changed his account from saving bank/salary account to Salary power plus without any information to him. Careful perusal of Ex.B1 discloses that the complainant had opened his account in February, 2006 as SBI/Salary Power Plus. So the contention of the complainant is not acceptable. The next contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties had deducted Rs.150/-towards penalty stating that if the transactions are more than thrice in a month, they had imposed a fine as per their bank guidelines which was not informed to him. The complainant had signed on the terms and conditions printed on the other side of the Ex.B1. The terms and conditions read as follows “I have understood the terms and conditions relating to various schemes and that I accept and agree by the terms and conditions and I agree that the bank may debit my account for service charges as applicable from time to time.” When the complainant had duly signed on the terms and conditions, he is bound by them. As per the banking norms the charges of R.150/-were debited to the account of the complainant which rejected in the statement of accounts Ex.B3. It is the duly of the complainant to see whether sufficient balance is there in his account and without checking the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.270/- which was dishonoured and for this, the opposite party cannot be blamed as there were no sufficient funds.
In view of the aforesaid reasons there is no negligence, misinformation or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
8. Point No.III:- In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.Regards,
Click here to Become Premium Member
- By pankaj mishra. in forum ATM CardReplies: 3Last Post: 01-28-2013, 08:37 PM
- By email@example.com in forum BankingReplies: 2Last Post: 07-27-2012, 03:55 PM
- By adv.singh in forum BankingReplies: 6Last Post: 02-11-2010, 04:11 PM
- By adv.singh in forum BankingReplies: 0Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:42 PM
- By adv.sumit in forum BankingReplies: 6Last Post: 10-23-2009, 06:38 PM