State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027


S.C. CASE NO-FA/09/69



DATE OF FILING :11.2.2009 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 30.4.09



APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :

1. State Bank of India ,

Jadavpur University Branch,

188, Raja S.C Mullick Road, Jadavpur.

P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata- 700032.





2. Customer Grievance Cell,

State Bank Of India, Local Head Office,

“Samridhi Bhavan” Block-B, 1,Strand Road, Kolkata-700001.



RESPONDENTS/O.P.S : :



1. Smt Mina Rani Roy

Widow of Late Nirode Ranjan Roy,

4/3 , Second Street, Modern Park,

Santoshpur, P.S- Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700075.



BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE :

PRESIDENT : Shri Aloke Chakrabarti.

MEMBER : Shri. A.K.Ray.

MEMBER :



FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Shri G.C. Bandhapadhayay. (Advocate)

FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Shri Sekhar Ranjan Roy.( Authorized representative)







Shri A.K. Ray., Member



The Petitioner / Respondent had a pension account with the Appellate Bank since 1990 without cheque facility . The Balance in that account never fell below Rs. 20/- . But the OP had realized service charge on several occasions during the period from 31.03.98 to 30.06.07 which were not as per circular of the Bank. This was a deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint before the Forum below for a direction upon the OP / present Appellant to refund the amounts realized as service charge during the aforesaid period. The Appellant /OP in their written version contended that they had realized service charges on the basis of circulars of the bank issued from time to time and they had also refunded an amount of Rs. 60.34/- to the Petitioner as the same had been realized in excess. So, the bank had no deficiency.



The Respondent , Smt Mina Rani Roy was holding family pension account in her name with State Bank of India, Jadavpur University branch . It was without cheque facility . Service charges were deducted on several occasions by the bank on the grounds that her balance in that account fell below the stipulated minimum balance. The Respondent had opened her pension account with a deposite of Rs. 20/- on 9.8.90 which was the minimum balance required at that time. According to the Appellant from 1.4.95 the amount of minimum balance was raised. The Appellant relied on their Codified Circular Instructions ( reference TN&SB/46-A/24 dated –7/7/95). It transpires therefrom that although the amount of minimum balance in Savings Bank Account for Metropolitan Branch was Rs. 300/- wef 1.4.95 , but this minimum balance was not applicable to the pension accounts irrespective of the date of opening. This circular obviously was not applicable to the pension account holders. Moreover, the minimum balance as stated in the aforesaid circular was not applicable to the accounts opened prior to 1.4.95 as was the case of the Respondent. The concept of minimum balance in respect of pension accounts should therefore be construed properly in the light of the aforesaid circular.



In terms of circular no CIRFO/BO/46/2004-05 dated 31.7.04 – Bank’s Book of Instructions- Codification of Saving Bank Rules in case of pension account without cheque facility in Metropolitan Branches, the minimum balance would be Rs. 250/- and the service charge would be Rs. 12.50/- each time when the minimum balance will not be maintained. This circular was also shown to the Forum below. It has been contended by the Respondent in her written argument filed before us on 24.04.09 that she had been illegally penalized several times by way of deducting service charges during the period from 31.3.98 to 30.6.07 on the charge of fall of the minimum balance in her pension account. A total amount of Rs. 375.34/- was realized against which an amount of Rs. 60.34/- was refunded to her on 22.10.02. So a sum of Rs. 315/- remained deducted. The Forum below in its impugned order observed inter alia that in the written objection the OP Bank stated that the minimum balance was maintained by the Petitioner in her account till March, 2007 and for the period from 1.4.07 to 30.6.07 they could not state when the balance fell below the minimum level ,but deducted a sum of Rs. 150/- as service charge. The Appellant also admitted in its evidence before the Forum (page-8,para-8) that the Jadavpur University branch did not realize any service charge as the minimum balance was maintained by the account holder during the interim period till March, 2007. In the said evidence the Appellant further stated that the service charge was debited again in June, 2007 for not maintaining the minimum balance. The Appellant however could not prove how the Respondent failed to maintain the minimum balance in her account for the period from 1.4.07 to 30.6.07 . According to the Appellant the Respondent maintained the minimum balance during the interim period till March,2007 then the statement itself proved that the Respondent also maintained the minimum balance till June, 2007.



The Forum below in its order dated 5.12.08 passed in case no 42 of 2008 allowed the complaint on contest in the light of its decisions and directed the OP/ State Bank of India, Jadavpur University Branch to refund the amounts deducted from pension account of the Petitioner as service charge for the period from 31.3.98 to 30.06.07 totalling Rs. 375.34/- less the amount of refund. The Forum further imposed a litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by the OP to the Petitioner. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned order of the Forum below excepting the amount of cost which appears to be rather on the high side. The appeal therefore fails to succeed in full.



It is accordingly ordered that the appeal be allowed in part on contest without costs. The impugned order of the Forum below be affirmed subject to the modification that its order relating to cost be reduced to Rs. 500/- only.





Member President.