DATE OF FILING : 14.10.2016

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of  April,  2019

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

          SMT. ASAMOL. P                                        MEMBER

CC NO.282/2016

Between

Complainant       :    Jaimy C. Paul,

Proprietor,

High Range Spices, Adimaly,

Adimaly P.O.,  Idukki. 

(By Adv:  Martindas V. James)

And

Opposite Party                                          :     The Branch Manager,

  South Indian Bank Ltd.,

  Adimali Branch,

  Adimali P.O., Idukki. 

(By Adv:   Babichen V. George)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

Complainant is maintaining a current account with opposite party from 2011 in the name of his firm 'High Range Spices'.  Due to the fluctuations in the market, the complainant reduced his business volume from 2013 onwards, hence the business transaction with the said account is also less and as on 6.12.2014, the outstanding balance in the said account was Rs.10,242/-.  At the time of opening the current account, opposite party had made the complainant to believe that he had to keep a minimum balance of Rs.5000/- to maintain this account.  While so, on 6.12.2014, the complainant transferred Rs.10 lakhs from the said account to the Idukki branch of the opposite party.  On verifying his account of 5.8.2016, he surprised that the opposite party had charged Rs.787/- on 7.12.2014 under the head 'handling charges' for the amount so transferred to their own other branches.  It is also revealed to the complainant that the opposite party had withdrawn from the said account Rs.562/- on each month from 31.12.2014 to 31.5.2015, Rs.573/- from 30.11.2015 to 31.3.2016 towards 'service 

(cont....2)

-  2  -

charges' and balance as on 30.4.2016 in the above said account became zero.  When the complainant enquired about the same, the opposite party manager informed that it is due to the failure in maintaining minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in the account, the amount so withdrawn are as service charges.   

 

The complainant further averred that the opposite party had withdrawn the said amount in the head of handling charges, from the account of the complainant without intimating him either orally or in writing or without the knowledge or consent of the complainant.  The complainant has not received any information from opposite party regarding the minimum balance of Rs.5000/-.  Complainant further stated that, eventhough the account balance is zero, opposite party did not close the account.  If the minimum balance to be maintained in the said account, it is the duty of the opposite party to inform the complainant to maintain the minimum balance in the account.

 

The complainant further averred that on 5.8.2016 he deposited Rs.2 lakhs in the account and taken a statement of account.  Immediately on realising the illegality, he sent a legal notice to the opposite party demanding to credit the amount which was allegedly withdrawn by them.  But instead of complying the demand, opposite party again realising Rs.6,351/- from his account.  In total the opposite party illegally realised Rs.11,069/- from the account of the complainant.  The unauthorised and illegal withdrawal from the current account of the complainant by the opposite party without his consent amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Against this, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party to credit the amount of Rs.11,069/- to the current account of the complainant, further direct the opposite party to pay compensation and cost.  

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version, admitting the account details.  Opposite party contended that the minimum balance to be maintained in the current account of the complainant is Rs.10,000/- which is evident from account opening form.  All the terms and conditions of the current account including the minimum balance is well known to the complainant at the time of opening the 

(cont....3)

-  3  -

account.  It is unbelievable that the minimum balance of current account through which his business runs is not known to him.

 

Opposite party further contended that it is not practical to intimate each and every charges to a customer before and after transaction on every instances.  Apart from the transaction of general public, the opposite party branch is holding around ten thousand accounts.  Opposite party charged Rs.787/- as 'cash handling charge' at the time of transferring Rs.10 lakhs from this account.  No handling charge is applied to first 3 lakhs and Rs.100/- for additional lakh of rupees along with taxes will be applied as handling charges.  From December 2014 onwards, the core banking system debited the minimum balance charges from the account of the complainant and account became zero as on 30.4.2016.  Every account holder is supposed to maintain the minimum balance specified according to the category of accounts he holds, failing which bank has every right to charge service charge for not keeping the required minimum balance.  The history of complainant's account from the year 2013 onwards shows that he was least bothered and careless about his current account which attracted the minimum balance charges.  The basic features of current account itself is that account will be having frequent and regular transaction with voluminous amount which compared to saving bank account.  Moreover, nothing surprising for not closing  the above account as alleged by the complainant, when the balance is zero, because the laid down rules does not permit to close for the sole reason that the account balance is zero.  

 

Opposite party further contended that once a person opens an account with a bank and maintains it, it is implied that he is bound to the terms and conditions which he has agreed at the time of opening the said account.  Opposite party bank provides huge infrastructures and facilities to their customers and bank cannot survive without applying the interest and other charges.  Any change in the charge will be displayed in the notice board and also made available in the website.  The demand of the complainant through legal notice dated 5.8.2016 cannot be accepted as it does not have any base.   On receipt of this notice, opposite party had a detailed discussion with the complainant who is a frequent visitor of opposite party branch and all details explained in the written version was conveyed to 

      (cont....4)

-  4  -

complainant.  As the opposite party found the complainant was convinced and satisfied with the explanation of the opposite party, no reply was sent to lawyer's notice.  The opposite party had acted as per the terms and conditions applicable for the current account and debiting the amount for non-maintenance of minimum balance were within their rights.  Every charges applied in the account are backed by 'authority' by opposite party core banking computer system of opposite party applies charges which are legal and applicable as per the authority desired from various guidelines, circulars, rules laid down by RBI and other regulatory authorities from time to time.  Hence there was no illegal act on the part of the opposite party and accordingly the opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in this regard.

 

Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P5 marked.  Ext.P1 is the statement of account dated 5.8.2016.  Ext.P2 is the copy of letter dated 5.8.2016.  Ext.P3 is the copy of legal notice.  Ext.P4 is the postal acknowledgement card.  Ext.P5 is the copy of circular of RBI, No.RBI/2014-/15/308.

 

From the opposite side, manager of opposite party bank examined as DW1.  Ext.R1 to R4 marked.  Ext.R1 is the current account opening form of the complainant.  Ext.R2 is the copy of circular dated 17 August, 2013 of SIB Head officer.  Ext.R3 is the details of charges which the bank legally entitled to realise.  Ext.R3(a) is 4th and 14th pages of Ext.R3.  Ext.R4 is the statement of account. (Exts.R2, R3, R3(a) and R4 are marked with objection).

 

Heard both sides.  

 

The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-   We have heard the counsel  for both sides and have gone through the records.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant opened a current account with the opposite party bank as A/c. No.0610073000000040 in the year 2011 in the name of his business 

(cont....5)

  -  5  -

 

concern ' High Range Spices'.  He used this account for his business transaction till March 2013.  But due to the reduction in volume of business, the transaction through this account was not fully operative and as on 6.12.2014, the outstanding balance in this account was Rs.10,242/-.

 

The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that at the time of opening this account, the opposite party has caused to believe the complainant that he had to keep a minimum balance of Rs.5000/-.  The counsel further stated that the opposite party bank authorities canvassed at the event of opening their  new branch and the account opening forms are filled by them, the complainant put his signature and seal in the form alone.  

 

The counsel further argued that opposite party illegally realised an amount of Rs.11,009/- by way of cash handling charges and service charges, without the consent of the complainant from 2013 onwards.  The version of the complainant is that opposite party has no right to withdraw any amount towards handling charges or service charges without notice to the complainant.  Due to such illegal acts of the opposite party, the complainant sustained mental agony, distress and pain apart from monetary loss.  The counsel further pointed out that as on 6.12.2014, the outstanding balance in this account was Rs.10,242/- and after the realisation of above said charges in this account by the opposite party, on 30.04.2016, the account of the complainant became zero.  Opposite party had withdrawn the entire amount in this account as service charges without the consent of the complainant and they did not close the account even after the account  become with zero balance. 

 

Another point put forwarded by the counsel for the complainant was that, evenafter the acceptance of the legal notice dated 11.9.2016, issued by the complainant against the opposite party demanding to credit the entire amount so withdrawn with interest and compensation, neither the opposite party complied the demand nor send any reply.  Hence the above said act of the opposite party will amount to deficiency in customer service and unfair trade practice.

 

(cont....6)

-  6  -

 

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party resisted the arguments of the complainant.  First of all, the counsel pointed out that, the minimum balance is to be maintained in the current account is Rs.10000/- which is evident by the Ext.R1 opening form duly submitted by the complainant to the opposite party.

 

Then regarding the applying of service charges and cash handling charges.  The learned counsel pointed out that the opposite party bank charged service and handling charges on the basis of the System Debits for Cash Handling Charges circular of their head office (Ext.R2) dated 17.8.2013.   In that circular, it is specifically stated that Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.10/- per packet or Rs.100/- per lakh whichever is higher.  

 

In reply to the allegation that the opposite party bank did not close the above said current account evenafter the same becoming zero balance, the learned counsel stated that, for not closing the account when the balance is zero, because the laid down rules does not permit to close an account for the sole reason that the account balance is zero.

 

In reply to the allegation for the non-responding to the lawyer notice by the opposite party, the counsel argued that, on receipt of the notice, opposite party had a detailed discussion with the complainant, who is frequent visitor of the bank and all the details explained and found that the complainant was convinced and satisfied with the explanations of the opposite party, no reply was sent to the lawyer's notice.

 

In the present case, on perusing the records and evaluating the points of arguments and deposition, it is seen that, complainant signed the Ext.R1 current account opening form and put his seal in each and every page.  In page No.3 of the exhibit, it is speciality stated below the heading 'Value added Services', Category – Standard – Monthly credit balance Rs.10000/-.  Just below this column complainant put his seal and signature.  From perusing this document, it is evident that complainant is well aware that, the account which he chosen is current account standard and the monthly credit balance of this account is Rs.10000/-.  The deposition of the complainant that he is unaware of these things and the account opening 

  (cont....7)

-  7  -

form was filled by the bank authorities cannot be sustainable because being a prudent businessman, he should knew the nature of the account which he opted for his business transaction.

 

From the averment of complainant, it is very clear and admitted fact that this account was inoperative for a long period of more than one year.  As per the averment, the complainant operated this account till March 2013.  The next transaction through this account was on 6.12.2014.  Only on 5.8.2016, the complainant came to know that the opposite party bank debited the whole account balance by way of service charges.  On perusing Ext.R2, Circular of the Head office of opposite party bank dated 17.8.2013, for system debit cash handling charges. It  is seen that opposite party debited Rs.787/- as cash handling charge from the current account of the complainant as per law and further opposite party debited the service charges from the current account also based on prevailing rules and directions.  To counter this aspect, complainant provided Ext.P5, circular of RBI dated November 20, 2014.  This circular is issued for levy of penal charges and non-maintenance of minimum balance in savings bank account exclusively.  The nature and operation of current account is entirely different and its basic feature is that account will be having frequent and regular transaction with voluminous amount when compared to the savings bank account.  The contention of the opposite party bank regarding this matter and non-closing of zero balance account are based on rules which is prevalent in the banking sector.  As such, such defence of the opposite party cannot be brushed aside.

 

Then regarding the issuance of notices to all customers is also  the version of the opposite party is acceptable and sustainable that it is not practical, because the bank is handling huge number of accounts.

 

In this version, speciality stated the reason for non-issuance of the reply notice and their reason was not denied by the complainant in his proof affidavit or his deposition.

 

On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that, each and every allegation levelled against the opposite party are clearly and specifically answered with sufficient materials and                                            (cont....8)

-  8  -

unambiguously.  The version of the opposite party in this regard is fully admissible and opposite party established it with clear and cogent evidences and it is admitted that the act of the opposite party in the instant case is based on various guidelines, circulars and rules laid down by the RBI and other regulatory authorities from time to time.  

 

Under the above circumstance, the Forum finds no merit in the complaint and complaint dismissed.  No order to cost.

 

      Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2019

 

         Sd/-

   SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

          SMT. ASAMOL. P, MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1              -   Jaimi C. Paul.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              -  Pratheesh A.V.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1           -  statement of account dated 5.8.2016.  

Ext.P2           - copy of letter dated 5.8.2016.  

Ext.P3           -  copy of legal notice.  

Ext.P4           -  postal acknowledgement card.  

Ext.P5           -  copy of circular of RBI, No.RBI/2014-/15/308.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1          -  current account opening form of the complainant.  

Ext.R2          -  copy of circular dated 17 August, 2013 of SIB Head officer. 

Ext.R3          -  details of charges which the bank legally entitled to realise.  

Ext.R3(a)     -  4th and 14th pages of Ext.R3.  

Ext.R4         -  statement of account.

 

       Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT