Haryana

StateCommission

A/158/2017

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY PAL YADAV - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL NARANG

03 May 2023

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.158 of 2017

                                                Date of Institution: 09.02.2017

                                                          Date of Order: 03.05.2023

 

HDFC Bank Ltd. Opp. S.P.Residence, Mahendergarh Road, Narnaul, Haryana 123001 through its Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

Vijay Pal Yadav Age 45 years S/o Sh.Nathu Ram R/o H.No.73, Village Mirjapur Tehsil Narnaul, Distt. Mahendergarh, Haryana.

…..Respondent

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                  

Present:-    Mr.Sunil Narang, Advocate for theappellant.

                   Mr.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.

                                                ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          Delay of 54 days in filing the appeal is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

2.      The present appeal No.158 of 2017has been filed against the order dated 09.11.2016of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Narnaul(In short Now “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.69 of 2016, which was allowed.

3.      The brief facts of the case are that on 23.05.2007, complainant  opened saving bank account No.06231930000222 with the opposite party. According to the rules and regulations of RBI, a saving account can be opened and maintained with zero balance.  After opening of the above said account, the OP illegally and fraudulently debited the amount of Rs.,17,628.72 from the account of the complainant on account of minimum balance charges. The act of the OP came to the knowledge of the complainant on 15.03.2016 when account statement was provided to the complainant. He requested the OP to refund the amount of Rs.17,628.72 but OP refused to pay back the same. Thus there being deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, hence the complaint.

4.      In its written version,OP raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, concealment of true facts etc. and requested to dismiss the complaint.On merits, OP allegedthat  as per terms and conditions of saving bank account, the customer was required to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- failing which the bank was entitled to deduct some amount as penalty. The complainant failed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- in his saving bank account, as such the disputed amount was rightly deducted by the OP. Thus there was no deficiency in service or any sort of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and this complaint must fail.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Narnaulhas allowed the complaint vide order dated 09.11.2016, which is as under:-

“Hence, the complaint of the complainant is hereby allowed with costs and the opposite party is directed:

1.      To refund Rs.17,628/- along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization.

2.      To pay Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P.-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      These argumentswere advanced by Sh.Sunil Narang, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Naveen Sharma, Advocate for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Well if we look into the undertaking submitted by respondent he bound himself to certain terms and conditions for maintaining a saving bank account whereby the customer was required to maintain minimum balance of Rs.25,000/-  in his account failing which the bank would be entitled to deduct the penalty amount. The plea of the respondent-complainant that OP has illegally deducted the amount of Rs.17,628/- from his saving bank account, is not tenable in the eyes of law because he has failed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.25,000/- in his saving bank account so for this breach of condition the bank has rightly deducted the penalty amount from his account.    As per customer undertaking for opening saving account, the complainant had bound himself that he will be required to maintain an average quarterly balance of Rs.25,000/- an FD of Rs.1,00,000/- which will give him the benefit of a zero balance account for which the bank would provide several features.  Nothing has been disclosed that complainant has got a fixed deposit receipt with the appellant bank to be entitled to open and maintain a zero balance account and keep on availing various facilities offered by the appellant bank. That being so the learned District Commission has wrongly allowed the complaint. Thus, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain.

9.      Accordingly, this appeal is accepted, the impugned order is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.12,300/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellantagainst proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.     Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.      A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of order: 3rdMay, 2023                                            (S. P. Sood)                                                                                                                          Judicial Member

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)