IMPORTANT POINT
Deduction on account of service charges by the bank from current account of the complainant would not be deficiency in service if it is in accordance with the terms and conditions agreed upon by and between the bank and the customer.

S.C. Vyas, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 09.04.08, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called “District Forum” for short) in complaint case No.34/05, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein in respect of deficiency in service against the respondent Bank has been dismissed.

2. It is not in dispute that the appellant herein was having Current Account No.I.D.1080423 with the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank deducted Rs. 15,486.50p. from that account on 22.11.04. Earlier also on 19.10.04, Rs. 11,052.02p and on 16.12.04 Rs. 8,400/- were deducted as service charges. Notice was sent by the appellant herein to the respondent through Advocate, but even then the amount was not deposited in the account of the appellant herein. Grievance of the appellant/complainant before District Forum was that the Current Account was being operated by the appellant since 2001 and there was no agreement between the parties according to which any commission was payable to the Bank on cash transactions, but later on, in the month of October, November and in December, 2004, the respondent Bank had deducted some amount by way of commission on cash transactions, though there was no intimation, given to the appellant, prior to such deduction or imposition of such charges on cash transactions. Appellant contacted the Officers of the respondent Bank and they assured that the error would be rectified, but even then nothing was done by the Bank and thereafter consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum, claiming refund of Rs. 34,938.52 p. with interest and also

Rs. 2,000/ -as compensation for mental agony and financial loss and cost of litigation

Rs. 2,000/-.

3. The respondent Bank in its reply refuted all the charges levelled by the appellant herein and averred that the account of the complainant/appellant was in the category of Bronze Account and so he was required to keep average quarterly balance of Rs. 1,00,000/-. It has been averred that at the time of opening the account, it was agreed by the complainant that the full amount of costs, charges, fees and penalties payable for services rendered by the Bank whether in respect of the account or otherwise, can be debited from the account of the appellant. Authority was also given to the Bank to revise such charges at its discretion from time to time without notice to the accountholder. It has been further averred that when schedule No.2 was imposed by the Bank in the year 2004-05 and service charges were deducted, then its copy was sent to all the customers. Thus, there was no deficiency in service and charges were imposed as per the terms agreed between the parties and policy of the Bank. It has also been averred that complaint of the complainant /appellant was not maintainable before District Forum.

4. Learned District Forum after having considered the material placed before it, by both parties agreed with the contentions raised by the respondent Bank and dismissed the complaint.

5. Before us, only a short question was raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that no intimation was ever given to the appellant that his Bank Account was categorized in the Bronze Account and charges are payable as per that category. It has also been argued that there was no such agreement of payment of charges on account of keeping a particular balance in the Bank Account. Learned counsel for the OP/respondent to counter these arguments has submitted that at the time of opening the Account, it was agreed by the complainant/ appellant that he will pay all the costs, charges and fees etc. levied by the Bank as service charges and such amount would be debited from the Bank Account. It has also been submitted by him that in the year 2004, the Account was categorized and thereafter charges were imposed as per the category, under the authority given by the accountholder himself.

6. We have considered aforesaid arguments and perused