District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.

Consumer Complaint  No.119/2020.

 Date of Institution: 27.02.2020.

Date of Order: 28.11.2022.

Sunder Singh son of late Kharak Singh, resident of House NO. 206, Village Mujessar, Faridabad.

                                                                    …….Complainant……..

                                                Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Plot No. 7-A, Sector-24, Faridabad.

                                                                   …Opposite party……

Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Now  amended  Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.

BEFORE:            Amit Arora……………..President

Mukesh Sharma…………Member.

Indira Bhadana………….Member.

PRESENT:                   Sh.  Sushant Giri,  counsel for the complainant.

                             Sh.  O.P.Gaur, counsel for opposite party.

ORDER:  

                             The facts in brief of the complaint are that  the complainant was maintaining bank account in opposite party bank since many years holding account No. 55011432204 in his name namely Sunder Singh.  On many dates during 5.4.2018 to 17.1.2020 an amount of Rs.60,284/- had been deducted from

complainant’s account on different – different dates in different-different amount.  The complainant requested the opposite party many times to rectify in about the deductions done in his bank account but opposite party failed to rectify all the deductions. The complainant also given an application to the bank of opposite party dated 18.01.2020 for statement of account and also for deduction of the amount done on different –different dates by the opposite party bank.  The opposite party failed to rectify these deductions and had not gave any satisfactory reply to the complainant. The complainant sent legal notice  dated 3.2.2020 to the opposite party but all in vain. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint.  The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:

a)                pay an amount of Rs.60,284/-  which was deducted by opposite party illegally alongwith interest.

 b)                pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .

c)                 pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

2.                Opposite party No.1  put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that  the complainant had neither any cause of action nor locus standi in lodging the present complaint before this Commission.  At the very outset, it was submitted that the complainant had suppressed & concealed the true and material facts &information from this Commission in lodging the present complaint,  thus, had not approached with his honest and clear heart & hands,  It was submitted that the complainant was holding his saving bank A/c. NO. 55011432204 with State Bank of India, Branch: Sector-24, Faridabad.  As per the information and data available with the bank’s computer system, the complainant

had availed loan facility from financer – M/s. Capital Fin. Ltd.  It was further submitted  that to facilitate in paying the loan installments to the said financer, the complainant furnished & tendered multiple mandates to State Bank of India to deduct the loan  installments by debiting his saving bank A/c. No. 55011432204, so as to arrange the amount towards installments to the said financer.  For convenience and brevity sake, such mandate would be stored in the computer system, enabling the bank to deduct the amount automatically on or about the appointed day, date & month without any human intervention.    Thus, such mode of transaction was called as “Electronic Clearing System” as narrated in the account statement and used by the bank.  In case, there was no sufficient balance in the account with the State Bank of India, in that eventuality, the system would automatically charge the penalty by debiting to the account against the available balance on account of each failed transaction, terming it as “Mandate Failure Transaction” the narration used by the Bank was “ECS/ACH RET CH”, in the statement of account.  In furtherance of the process, if the transaction presented by the Service Provider”, returned due to insufficient funds and the charges accrued but not applied, thus, kept on accumulated, then, the system would debit the account automatically, as per availability of funds.  In the  case in  hand, the financer was also empowered to enforce its “Mandate” furnished by the complainant as borrower to it, on each & every appointed day, date and month to collect the loan installments from the saving bank account No. 55011432204 of the complainant with State Bank of India, Branch: Sector-24, Faridabad.  But there had been recurring failure transactions for want of sufficient funds in the account.  As a result, the computer system had automatically deducted the accumulated penalty charges on account of failure transactions against the available balance in the savings bank account No. 55011432204, duly reflected since 05.04.2018 till

01.09.2018 against credit balance at Rs.14,556.21 paisa.  In furtherance of such transactions, even after September 2018 such failure transactions kept on occurring, whereby, accumulating the penalty charges.  As and when, there was sufficient balance in the account, the computer system automatically used to deduct accumulated penalty charges, since the period 29.01.2019 to 07.01.2020.  As a net result, the computer system had automatically deducted the accumulated penalty charges on account of each & every failure transaction under the saving bank A/c. No. 55011432204 of the complainant to the tune of Rs.57,228/- for the period 05.04.2018 to 07.01.2020.  The complainant being the holder of account No. 55011432204 had given multiple mandate(s) and the transactions presented by the Service provider branch were returned due to “insufficient funds”, so penalty at Rs.295/- was levied against each & every failed transactions.   Opposite party  denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

5.                In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– State Bank of India with the prayer to: a)  pay an amount of Rs.60,284/-  which was deducted by opposite party illegally alongwith interest.  b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c)  pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.

                   To establish his case the complainant  has led in his evidence,  affidavit of Sunder Singh, bank statement, letter by the complainant to State Bank of India, letter dated 20.01.2020,, legal notice, aadhar card.

On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and

opposed.  As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shalini Sharma, Chief Manager, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Branch at: Plot No.7QA, Sector-24, Industrial Estate, Faridabad, Annx.R/1 – Account statement, Annx.R/2 – Mandate sheet by A/c holder – Sunder Singh (Screen No. 06799), Annx.R/3 – email dated 19.02.2020, Annx.R/4 – email dated 16.3.2020, Ex.R/5 – Electronic Clearing Service System Charges guidelines.

6.                In this complaint, the complaint  was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pay a sum of Rs.60284/- which was deducted by opposite party illegally alongwith interest.

7.                The complainant being the holder of account No. 55011432204 has given multiple mandate(s) and the transactions presented by the service provider branch were returned due to insufficient funds, so penalty at Rs.295/- was levied against each and every failed transaction. Therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed at the part of the bank in levying the penalty charges.  As per the banking transaction, the deduction of penalty charges/debit of account of the complainant on account of mandate failed transaction against each & every transaction is legal, valid and justified but cannot be termed arbitrary or unjustified at all.  The complainant time and again had been giving mandate to the bank.  As a result, the deduction of penalty charges on account of mandate failure transaction under the mode of Electronic Clearing system i.e. ECS since 05.04.2018 till 07.1.2020 has been within  the knowledge & notice of the   complainant as per document submitted by opposite party vide Annx.R/4 & R3.

8.                As per the RBI instructions, opposite party will charge penalty amount in case of insufficient funds.  In this case the balance amount was low and the bank has charged for the penalty.   There is negligence  on the part of the

complainant. After going through the evidence led by the complainant  as well as opposite party, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved.  Hence, the complaint is dismissed.  Copy of this order be given to the parties  concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.

Announced on:  28.11.2022                                 (Amit Arora)

                                                                                  President

                     District Consumer Disputes

           Redressal  Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Mukesh Sharma)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.

                                                (Indira Bhadana)

                Member

          District Consumer Disputes

                                                                    Redressal Commission, Faridabad.