Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/507

RAM HARI - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

17 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III WEST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI

NEW DELHI-110058

 

 

C.C. NO. 507 OF 2016

 

IN THE MATTER OF:

RAM HARI SHARMA                                                                                         

B-8/186, Sector 5, Rohini, New Delhi-110085                                  ...COMPLAINANT

 

VERSUS

 

ICICI BANK LTD.                                                                                                               C-1, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058                                            ...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

	DATE OF INSTITUTION:    JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION:	26.07.2016 17.10.2022  17.11.2022

CORAM

 

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms. Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

Present: Mr.Ram Rup Sharma, father of complainant

                None for OP.

 

ORDER

Per: Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Brief facts leading to filing of the present complaint are as under:

1.       Complainant states that  he is maintaining a Saving Bank Account No.037801004336 with the OP. The OP bank deducted a sum of Rs.6537.10 from his saving account as minimum account balance charges( for short MAB) for twenty months starting   from February, 2013 to August 2014  without any prior information/warning to the complainant and continued to deduct the amount till  his account balance became NIL.   Complainant states that he came to know about this  only in the month of July, 2015. Accordingly the complainant visited the OP branch and requested the Manager to reverse the total amount in his saving account as OP bank had not given any information, message, warning notice etc. about  it  before deducting the amount.  If the OP bank had informed him, the complainant would have certainly deposited the required amount to maintain minimum balance.  The grievance of the complainant is that  he did not receive any reply from the OP bank, hence as a protest,  he  asked the OP bank to close his said savings account on August 8, 2015 against the unsatisfactory banking services. It is submitted by the complainant that the deduction of MAB charges from his SB account by OP bank, without any information to him is deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

The following relief is sought by way of present complaint:

(1)  to direct the OP Bank to pay back the total amount deducted as Minimum  account balance (MAB) charges from the account  of complainant along with interest.

(2) Any amount deemed fit to compensate the mental torture given by the OP bank in this  period of nineteen months.

 

2.       Complainant filed with the complaint, copy of the summary of his SB account as on 20.07.2015 relating to the period from 01.02.2012 to 20.07.2015), showing deduction of MAB charges from the account of  complainant.

3.       Upon admission of the complaint, notice was issued to OP Bank on 29.07.2016.  Accordingly, OP filed reply wherein it was submitted by the OP that the complaint against the opposite party is not maintainable as the complainant has not raised any grounds of deficiency against the opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       OP submitted that complainant had visited its branch for account closure on 08.08.2015 and requested for the reversal of MAB charges levied on his account since Feb 2013, till date of closure. The complainant was informed that all the MAB charges levied cannot be reversed but only an amount of Rs.1179.78 could be reversed and that too as a Service Gesture towards the complainant. OP submitted that the complainant wanted the entire amount of Rs.6537/- to be reversed and the complainant informed the opposite party that it is difficult for him to maintain the Minimum Balance and wanted to close the account. The OP Branch accepted the account closure request and processed the same.  OP stated that the complainant's father approached its branch on 10.08.2015 and asked to accept the request and give the receiving only. Branch official  accepted the request stating that the account has been closed.  OP submitted that as per OP bank process, MID is also signed by the complainant which states that charges will be levied in account in case of Non- maintenance of required MAB. Also the complainant never approached the OPs since Feb 2013 and now when he wanted to close the account and was informed about the MAB charges, the complainant claimed that he was not informed about the same.

5.       According to the OP, the Complainant has failed to show even an iota of deficiency or negligence on the part of answering Opposite Party. As per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravneet Singh Bagga:  'the onus to prove deficiency is upon the complainant' and in the present case the complainant has miserably failed to prove any deficiency on the part of opposite party.  Hence the present case should be dismissed. 

6.       As per OP, the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct. On the one hand,  complainant is alleging that the answering opposite party is  guilty of deficient service, yet he has failed to prove the same and the documents annexed do not show that there has been any wrong done to the complainant. In fact it was complainant himself who has failed to maintain minimum balance in his account as per terms and conditions, for which charges were levied, and for which the OP cannot be penalised.   The complainant in not liable for any compensation. Therefore in the light of facts mentioned above, OP  prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.       OP enclosed with its reply copy of letter dated 21.09.2015 written by its Branch Manager to the complainant explaining as to how the MAB charges were levied.

8.       In rebuttal, the complainant filed rejoinder and denied all the  contentions raised by the OP in its reply.  Complainant submitted that the Saving Account was opened by him in the year  2001 in B- Block Janak puri Branch with Account No. ending 8036 when the MAB was Rs.5,000/-( Minimum balance required) and the same Account was transferred to the OP branch in 2008 with Account no. ending 4336. As the balance at the relevant time was Rs.6,757.10, the question of MAB charges does not arise. Further the OP bank debited the MAB charges continuously for 19 months without any single information to customer and it clearly shows the OP's deficiency of service.

9.       Complainant further denied that he was offered reversal of amount of Rs.1179.78 as a service gesture till the closure of account on 08-08-20015.  The complainant also denied  expressing any difficulty in maintaining the minimum balance, but due to deficiency of services i.e. without information deduction of MAB charges even when the balance was above the required minimum balance, the complainant was forced  to close the account under protest. It is submitted by the complainant that  his father approached the bank and submitted the complaint regarding illegal deduction of MAB charges for continuously 19 Months without any single information to customer.

10      Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant  and he exhibited the documents placed on record.  Along with the evidence affidavit, complainant placed on record two circulars issued by the Reserve Bank of India on 01.7.2013 and 01.07.2014, copy of order of Banking Ombudsman dated 22.03.2016 whereby the complaint of complainant against the OP was closed since the complainant  had by then closed his SB A/c with OP.

11.     OP also filed evidence by way of affidavit and exhibited the document placed on record.

12.     Written arguments were filed by the complainant as also by the OP.  Oral arguments  on behalf of complainant were heard on 17.10.2022.  There was no appearance on behalf of OP.  Accordingly the orders were reserved. 

13.     It may be noted here that as per record, arguments in this case were heard by the previous Bench on 19.07.2019 and orders reserved.  However, the orders were not passed. We now proceed to adjudicate the matter based on the oral arguments advanced  by the complainant as also on the basis of written arguments filed by the  complainant and OP in terms of provisions of Section 38(2)(C) of the CP Act, 2019.

14.     The contention of the complainant was that   he was not supposed to maintain a minimum account balance of Rs.10,000/- as alleged by the OP since  in terms of the  SB A/c  opening instructions  in 2001,  he was to maintain a minimum balance in his account of Rs.5,000/- which he was maintaining throughout.  Further the OP Bank  never notified to the complainant either by way of SMS or any other communication, before going for levy of  MAB charges for  maintaining less balance in his account.  As per complainant, the two circulars  of RBI  issued in July, 2013 and  July, 2014 clearly stipulate that the concerned Bank should notify the customer  before levy of such charges. It is relevant to quote para 5.4 of the said circular, which is common  in both the circulars of 2013 and 2014, as under:

           “5.4  Minimum balance in savings bank accounts.

At the time of opening the accounts, banks should inform their customers in a transparent manner the requirement of maintaining minimum balance and levying  of charges etc. if the minimum balance is not maintained. Any charge levied  subsequently  should be transparently  made known to all depositors in advance with one  month’s notice.  The bank should inform, at least one month in advance, the existing account holders  of any change  in the prescribed minimum balance and the charges that may be levied if the prescribed minimum balance is not maintained.”

                                                                             (emphasis supplied)

The above circulars clearly bring out the factual position that the banks are supposed to notify their customers  in advance if they are planning to levy MAB charges on their accounts.  No such exercise as alleged by the complainant was followed by the OP before levying the MAB charges.

15.     Further, the OP Bank before the Banking Ombudsman admitted that the complainant had initially opened his SB account in 2001 in some other branch of OP but the OP was not able to retrieve the AOF (Account Opening Form) of the said SB Account.  Since the OP was not able to retrieve the earlier details/instructions attached to the SB A/c for the year 2001, on what premise the OP was asserting  that the minimum balance to be maintained  by the complainant in his SB A/c is not known. The OP also admitted before the BO that the reversal charges of Rs.1179.78 could not be credited to the account of the complainant as by then the complainant had closed his account.

16.     We may also note that  though the OP averred in its reply that  as per the account opening form signed by the complainant, he was supposed to maintain a minimum balance in his account of Rs.10,000/- but no such document in support thereof has been placed on record.  The OP has also not been able to  sustain its statement that  the account was closed by the complainant as he was not able to maintain minimum balance as no such proof showing the unwilling of complainant for the said reason has been placed on record. Even if for the sake of argument it is presumed that the minimum balance to be maintained in his account by the complainant was Rs.10,000/-, the OP Bank was obliged to follow the instructions of RBI quoted above before levying the MAB charges.

17.     For the foregoing conclusions arrived at by us, we find that the complainant has very well proved the deficiency on the part of OP  as suggested  in the judgment quoted by the OP in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga  and accordingly we hold the OP Bank guilty of deficiency in service in not notifying the complainant  in advance before levying the MAB charges in his SB A/c.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to refund to the complainant the MAB charges in the sum of Rs.6537/- levied on him for the period from February, 2013 to August, 2014, along with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the  complainant till final realization.   For the harassment, mental agony faced by the complainant in all these seven years,  OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant  as compensation.  Let this order be complied with within thirty days of receipt of copy of this Order.

A copy of this order shall be supplied free of cost to parties to the dispute in the present complaint,upon a written requisition being made in writingin the name of President of the Commission in terms of Regulation 21 of the ConsumerProtection Regulations, 2020.

File be consigned to record room.

 

(Richa Jindal)                                      (Anil Kumar Koushal)                   (Sonica Mehrotra)

   Member                                           Member                                               President