Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Shriram S/O. Baburao Pisal vs 1. The Branch Manager, on 4 March, 2014

                                   1                         F.A. No. 615-11




   MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
        COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH
                  AT AURANGABAD

                                              Date of filing: 17.10.2011
                                              Date of Order: 04.03.2014


FIRST APPEAL NO.: 615 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. 365 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AHMEDNAGAR.

Shriram s/o. Baburao Pisal
R/o. 36-A, Ayodhya Nagari,
Pipeline Road Corner, Shriram Chowk,
Vasant Tekadi, Savedi,
Tal. & Dist. Ahmednagar.                     ... Appellant


       VERSUS

1. The Branch Manager,
   Bank of Maharashtra,
   Branch at Varur, (Bk.)
   Tal.Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.
2. Regional Manager,
   Bank of Maharashtra,
   Ahmednagar Region, Gurukul,
   2nd Floor, La Taki Road, Ahmednagar,
   Dist. Ahmednagar.
3. General Manager,
   Bank of Maharashtra,
   Central Office, 'Lokmangal',
   1501, Shivajinagar, Pune.                        ... Respondents

Coram :   Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mrs. Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.

Present: Adv. Shri. Pramod Pisal, for appellant.

- :: ORAL JUDGMENT:: -

(Delivered on 4th March, 2014) Per Shri. S.M. Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.09.2011 of District Consumer Forum, Ahmednagar rejecting consumer complaint No.365/2011. (for the sake of brevity the appellant is hereinafter referred as the "complainant" and respondent as "opponent bank")

2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, complainant is an account holder of the respondent bank. The complainant is in serving as a 'Professor' at New Arts, Commerce & Science College, Shevgaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

Therefore he was required to obtain salary saving account with the opponent bank bearing account No.20192605406. According to the complainant as per the circular dated 30.05.1997 issued by Government of Maharashtra, the account holders of the opponent bank are entitled to avail every facility viz. check book, ATM facility, amount transfer facility free of charges. However the opponent bank committed deficiency in service by charging the cheque book charges, signature identification charges, core banking facility charges etc. Despite several complaints of the complainant the opponent bank continued to charge debiting the charges in his account etc. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponent bank the complainant has filed consumer complaint before District Consumer Forum claiming compensation Rs.65,762/- with interest @ 18% p.a. The District Consumer Forum on hearing the learned counsel for the complainant rejected the complaint at the stage of admission holding that the complaint is false and frivolous.

3. Feeling aggrieved by that order the complainant came to this Commission in appeal.

4. We heard Shri. Pisal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant and perused the written notes of argument submitted by him. We also perused the copy of complaint, copy of impugned order, copy of circular dated 30.05.1997 issued by Government of Maharashtra and also the extracts of the salary saving account of the complainant and also the copies of complaints of the complainant which were made with the opponent bank and the reply and other correspondence letters between the complainant and opponent bank.

5. Pointing out the recitals from the Government Circular dated 30.09.1997 specifically para-8 of this circular it is submitted by Shri. Pisal, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant that opponent bank isliable to provide all the facilities such as the cheque book, debit and credit card facility, ATM facility, LT facility etc. with free of charges and also core banking facility charges etc. He has tried to support his contention by pointing out the entries from the extract of account, specifically entry dated 24.10.2009 debiting amount Rs.50/- in his account towards passbook charges and entry dated 04.05.2010 debiting amount Rs.162/- towards coring banking charges. It is submitted that the opponent bank committed deficiency in service by debiting such charges etc. But we find little force in the submission of Mr. Pisal, learned counsel for the complainant, because though the opponent bank had rightly or wrongly debited such charges, the copy of letter dated 03.12.2010 and 25.09.2010 of opponent bank reflect that the same charges are re-credited in the account of the complainant. These letters clearly indicate that with the permission of the head office of the opponent bank, the amount of such charges are re-credited in the account of complainant and it was before filing of the complaint. Thus it is obvious from the record that the opponent bank has already made redressal of the complainant's grievances. Therefore it cannot be accepted that cause of action arose for filing the complaint by the complainant. Therefore the District Consumer Forum has rightly rejected the complaint holding that complaint is false and frivolous. But we find no glaring 4 error or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order rejecting the complainant's complaint. Hence no interference is warranted.

7. In the result, the appeal is being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed. Hence the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. No order as to cost.

                 (Mrs. Uma S. Bora)                   (S.M. Shembole)
                  Member                         Presiding Judicial Member

Kalyankar