National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Axis Bank Ltd. vs Shri Surya Narayan Saxena on 7 January, 2009
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO. 3342 OF 2007
(Against the order
dated 13/07/2007
in Appeal/ Complaint No.374/2006
of
the State Commission,
Delhi)
AXIS BANK LTD.
(formerly known as UTI
Bank Ltd.)
A, Swathya Vihar,
Delhi-110092
........ Petitioner
Vs.
SHRI SURYA NARAYAN
SAXENA
B-79, Swathya Vihar
Delhi-110092
........ Respondent
BEFORE:
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. S.K.
NAIK, MEMBER
For the Petitioner
: Shri Dharam Dev., Advocate
For the Respondent : Shri Surya Narayan Saxena, in person
Pronounced on :_07.01.2009
ORDER
PER S.K. NAIK, MEMBER The respondent/complainant, a Senior Citizen had two grievances against the opposite party Axis Bank. His first grievance was that the balance in his account which stood at Rs.3,83,896.12 as on 31.12.2002 was reduced to Rs.3,29,329.37 as on 31.3.2003 without any valid reason. Since he had not made any withdrawal corresponding to the reduction of this amount, he sought clarification and sent a number of fax messages. The other grievance was that the Bank has not paid the due amount on his fixed term deposit of Rs.74,360/-. Since the petitioner/opposite Party Bank failed to respond to his repeated queries, he filed a complaint before the District Forum.
On notice, the petitioner/opposite party contested the matter. The District Forum after hearing the parties and on a scrutiny of the evidence produced by the parties arrived at the conclusion that there was no discrepancy in the accounts and that the complainant is not able to clear his mind of some confusion which he has entertained. The complaint accordingly was dismissed.
Aggrieved thereupon the respondent/complainant field an appeal against the order of the District Forum before the State Commission who vide the impugned order dated 13.7.2007 has allowed the appeal and ordered the payment of lump sum compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant to be paid by the petitioner/opposite party-Bank.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission that the opposite party-Bank has filed this revision petition.
We have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent/ complainant who has appeared in person and argued his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner/opposite party Bank has contended that the District Forum had examined the whole matter and scrutinized the statement of account in respect of the respondent/ complainant from the beginning till he closed his account with them and found no discrepancy. He further contends that the complainant had discontinued his account with the petitioner Bank but later came back and re-opened his account which is proof enough that he continues to have faith in the quality of service of the Bank. He contends that the State Commission has not considered these aspects. Further, the State Commission has ignored the factual statement of accounts, mis-read them and erroneously held the petitioner deficient in service.
Respondent/complainant has contended that the petitioner-Bank has deprived him of a substantial amount by reducing the balance in his account by the end of March 2003 for no reason. Despite numerous visits to the Bank, they have not rectified the mistake which forced him to approach the Consumer Fora. The State Commission has rightly held them to be deficient in service causing harassment to a Senior Citizen.
We have perused the statement of accounts and related records carefully.
Main thrust of the respondent/complainants argument is that the statement of account furnished to him by the Bank itself for the period 1.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 indicates the total debits at Rs.1,70,864.25 while the withdrawals during the same period stand at Rs.1,69,000/- only. Thus the deposits were more by Rs.1,864.25. He contends that the balance as on 31.12.2002 being Rs.3,83,896.12, his balance at the end of March 2003 should have been (Rs.3,83,896.12 + Rs.1,864.25) = Rs.3,85,760.37. On the contrary, it has been lowered to Rs.3,29,329.37. He, therefore, justifies the order passed by the State Commission that the petitioner Bank has failed to explain as to why his balance, rather than increasing has been reduced by huge sum of Rs.54,566.75.
In order to appreciate the transactions in proper perspective, it would be useful to extract the statements which create this confusion.
STATEMENT I UTI BANK LTD.
SWASTHYA VIHAR NEW DELHI TYPE : SAVING BANK NORMAL DATE : 6.5.2003 A/C NO.055010100001083 acctCrncy Coad Age :
To, Mr.Surya Narayan Saxena B-79, Swasthya Vihar Vikas Marg New Delhi Statement of account for the period 1.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 Date Particulars Chq.No. Withdrawals Deposits Balance 01-Jan-03 B/F 10,266.11Cr 04-Jan-03 By O/W Clg 6,000.00 16,266.11Cr 04-Jan-03 By O/W Clg 72,214.00 88,480.11Cr 06-Jan-03 Sweep Transfer to 75,000.00 13,480.11Cr 07-Jan-03 To I/W Clg 20433 70,000.00 56,519.89Dr 07-Jan-03 Sweep Transfer fro 67,000.00 10,480.11Cr 28-Jan-03 By O/W Clg 7,873.00 18,353.11Cr 29-Jan-03 Sweep Transfer To 5,000.00 13,353.11Cr 03-Feb-03 By O/W Clg 20434 3,356.25 16,709.36Cr 04-Feb-03 Sweep Transfer To 5,000.00 11,709.36Cr 03-Mar-03 To Cash paid to SN 6,000.00 5,709.36Cr 03-Mar-03 Amount Transfer fr 5,000.00 10,709.36Cr 03-Mar-03 Repayment credit 7.00 10,716.36Cr 04-Mar-03 By O/W Clg 6,000.00 16,716.36Cr 05-Mar-03 055010000245753 5,000.00 11,716.36Cr 20-Mar-03 T Cash paid to SN 3,000.00 8,716.36Cr 21-Mar-03 055010400249126 2,000.00 10,716.36Cr 22-Mar-03 IO for 05501040014 1,309.00 12,025.36Cr 31-Mar-03 3 :Int.Pd:01-01:INT 105.00 12,130.36Cr Page Total 1,69,000.00 1,70,864.25 12,130.36Cr Grand Total 1,69,000.00 1,70,864.25 12,310.36Cr Unless the constituent notifies the bank Immediately of any discrepancy found By his in this statement of account, it will be taken that he has found the Date Stamp Manager The account correct.
STATEMENT II The summary of total debits and credits during period 4.1.2003 to 31.3.2003.
Account balance as on 4.1.2003 is Rs.3,83,896.12 The transactions between 5.1.2003 to 31.3.2003 is :-
Account No. Trans. Date Rmks.
Debit Credit 055010100001083 055010100001083 7-Jan.,03 28-Jan.,03 TO CLG BY CLG/ZN MICROUT/ SET 23 70000.00 0.00 0.00 7873.00 055010100001083 3-Feb., 03 BY CLG/ZN MICROUT/ SET 43 0.00 3356.25 055010100001083 3-Feb.,03 TO CASH PAID TO SN SAXENA 6000.00 0.00 055010100001083 4-Mar.,03 BY CLG/ZN MICROUT/SET 115 0.00 6000.00 055010100001083 21-Mar.,03 TO CASH PAID TO SN SAXENA 3000.00 0.00 Total Interest in TD period 4.1.2003 to 31.3.3003 7931.00 TDS deducted 832.00 Interest to SB 055010100001083 105.00 Account Balance as on 31.3.2003 329329.37 Statement I above, pertains to the Savings Bank Account of the respondent/complainant. The operation of this account has to be understood in the context of the maintenance of the flexi Encash 24 Account in which balance over Rs.10,000/- is shifted to a linked term deposit account : meaning thereby that accruals/deposits of amount above Rs.10,000/- in the Savings Bank Account automatically get transferred to a linked term deposit account to earn higher rate of interest. This is reflected in the Savings Bank account as if it has been withdrawn/debited to his account. In reality, however, it amounts only to a book transaction/transfer to another account of the account holder. In Banking Terminology, this flexi account is called as a sweep in account. Similarly, when the balance in the Saving Bank Account falls below the minimum level of Rs.10,000/- for whatever reason and when the account holder issues cheques to a third party for any amount over and above Rs.10,000/- or withdraws cash, the last linked deposit is broken and brought into/credited to the savings Bank Account to ensure that the contemplated transaction of the account holder is honoured and the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- is maintained. A careful perusal of this statement will show these entries in the form of sweep transfer to and sweep transfer from on column 4,6,8 & 10 besides withdrawal of cash and deposit of outward cheques. Since this Savings Bank Account contains real transactions such as withdrawal of cash and inward and outward cheques transactions as well as credit on account of interest and not so real transactions of book transfer to term deposit account, an impression appears to have gathered in the mind of the complainant that his total balance has increased in real terms. That the statement gives only the summary of transactions for that period as appearing on that page only misses the point that his linked term deposits have been accounted for separately. This is obvious from the fact that while the statement No.I states the balance as on 31.3.2003 Rs.12,130.36 Cr., the real balance as stated by the Bank on that date stands at Rs.3,29,329.37 which is being disputed without understanding the procedure of maintenance of the flexi accounts electronically. The system has virtually no scope for any error or manipulation.
Statement No.II which incorporates the total balance after taking into account all the inflows and outflows gives the following withdrawals/debits and deposits/credits during this period which is as under :-
Withdrawals/Debits Deposits/Credits 7.1.2003 Rs.70,000.00 28.1.2003 Rs.7,873.00 3.3.2003 Rs.6,000.00 3.2.2003 Rs.3,356.25 21.3.2003 Rs.3,000.00 4.3.2003 Rs.6,000.00 TDS amount Rs.832.00 Interest credit Rs.7,931.00 Interest credit Rs.105.00 Total Rs.79,832.00 Total Rs.25,265.25 These transactions show that during Jan.-March, 2003, the amount of debit was (Rs.79,832.00 - Rs.25,265.25) = Rs.54,566.75 more than the credits. This explains why the balance at the end of March 2003 got reduced by Rs.54,566.75.
An affidavit to this effect too has been filed by the petitioners. The respondent/complainant has not disputed these entries since they flow out of the statement of account given to him by the Bank as well as submitted before the fora below. The State Commission has over looked these transactions and, therefore, has erroneously held that the shortfall of Rs.54,567.25 remained unexplained.
As stated earlier, the District Forum had tallied the entries one by one and found no discrepancy. We also find that the problem lies in the proper understanding of the flexi account which is electronically maintained; rather than in any discrepancy in the maintenance of the account. The fall in the balance has been on account of proper debit entries which are accepted by the complainant.
With regard to the FDR encashment of the principal amount of Rs.74,360/-, we find that the fixed deposit was made for a period of one year w.e.f 22.3.2004 and was to be matured on 22.3.2005. It was to carry 6.25@ interest. However, the respondent/complainant encashed it pre-maturely on 1.1.2005 and after applying the slab relevant for this period @ 5.75 as per RBI guidelines and after deducting the TDS amount of Rs.371/-, the respondent/complainant has been correctly paid the amount of Rs.77,364/-. There is no deficiency on part of the petitioner Bank. The allegations leveled by the respondent/complainant against the petitioner-Bank are not founded on facts. The State Commission has erroneously held them to be liable for deficiency in service. The District Forum was right in holding that the complainant is not able to clear the confusion in his mind even though his accounts have been properly maintained by the petitioner-Bank.
Thus, while we set aside the order of the State Commission and accept the revision petition under the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/ (ASHOK BHAN, J) PRESIDENT Sd/ (B.K. TAIMNI) MEMBER Sd/ (S.K. NAIK) MEMBER St/20 (A & B)