State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sartham Kapoor vs Punjab National Bank on 3 January, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 544 of 2017
Date of Institution : 18.07.2017
Date of Reserve : 19.12.2017
Date of Decision : 03.01.2018
Sarthak Kapoor aged 19 years son of Sh. Sunil Kapoor son of Sh.
Ram Nath Kapoor son of Gurmukh Dass son of Sh. Saudagar Mal
son of Sh. Larddika Mal son of Sh. Sauhneiyya Mal, Resident of
Block-1, House No. 31/09, Kundanpuri, Civil Lines, Ludhiana -
141 001.
....Appellant/Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Ludhiana - 141 001
through its Chief C.E.O.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Site No. 5, Near GLADA
Office, Ferozpur Road, Ludiana - 141 001 through its Chief Circle
Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Zone Office : Punjab (South) Zone,
Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Zonal Manager.
4. Punjab National Bank, 7, Bhikhaiju Cama Place, New Delhi
- 110066 through its Chairman/ Managing Director.
....Respondents/Ops
First Appeal against the order dated
22.5.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 2
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondents : Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
The appellant/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 22.5.2017 passed in consumer complaint No. 474 dated 24.6.2016 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the respondents/opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) on the averments that the complainant is a student pursuing study and is maintaining Zero Balance Student Savings Account # 029700- 15000-11190 under PNB Vidyarthi Scheme with Op No. 1 since June, 2012 and under the scheme, ATM Card/Debit Card and incidental charges were free/nil. The complainant visited Op No. 1 on 16.8.2013 to get his passbook updated and came to know that Op had deducted ATM annual charges of Rs. 112/- from the account of the complainant as per the entry dated 2.8.2013 and in that Op No. 1 had violated the lawful right of the complainant to avail the facilities provided under the PNB Vidyarthi Scheme. The complainant issued letter dated 16.8.2013 to Op No. 1 under registered cover. Thereafter, his father as he was minor at that First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 3 time requested to reverse the credit of Rs. 112/- to the complainants account but Ops neither replied nor responded to the said letter and entry was not reversed, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Similarly when the complainant visited Op No. 1 on 18.6.2016 and requested them to reverse the entries of ATM annual charges but with no result. It has been stated that it is not a single case, there may be numerous students/account holders with Ops and Ops had given the similar treatment to them. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complaint was filed by the complainant against the Ops before the District Forum seeking directions against the Ops to refund the amount, if any, deducted from the account of the complainant as ATM Annual Charges and further pass the general directions to the Ops to refund such amount, if any, deducted from similar other account holders.
3. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint is not legally maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops of having debited a sum of Rs. 112/- on 2.8.2013 towards ATM/Debit Card annual maintenance charges in the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account of the complainant with Op No. 1. As per the guidelines dated 21.6.2012, with certain freebies/concessions. However, these guidelines were subject to change from time to time. As per the bank rules, these were not on permanent basis. In the month of August, 2013, the Head Office of the Ops issued the guidelines relating to PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts maintained by the First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 4 students and it was reiterated that ATM/Debit Card will be issued free of charges. However, annual maintenance charges be recovered. The guidelines were duly informed to the general public by uploading the same on the Bank's website and displaying in their respective branches and a computer system automatically started charging the ATM/Debit Card charges applicable to PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Accounts, therefore, Ops had debited a sum of Rs. 112/- vide entry dated 2.8.2013 and thereafter on 1.8.2014 and 1.12.2015; present complaint is motivated, just to harass and humiliate the Ops and is nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law. On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant opened PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account No. 0297001500011190 with Op No. 1 w.e.f. 21.6.2012 with an initial deposit of Rs. 100/-. As on 21.6.2012, ATM/Debit Card and annual maintenance charges were nil. However, as reiterated in the preliminary objections these charges were introduced by the bank for the first time vide their circular issued in August, 2013 and after that annual ATM charges were started to be deducted. Those charges have been deducted as per the guidelines issued by the Bank from time to time because Bank had a right to have a change in their instructions, therefore, there is no deficiency in services on the part of Ops. Complaint is nothing but an abuse of process of law. There is no merit in the complaint, it be dismissed.
4. Before the District Forum, the parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence.
First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 5
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. CA and documents Exs. C- 1 to C-7. On the other hand, the Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Sushil Kumar Jain, Chief Manager as Ex. DA and documents Exs. D1 to D8.
6. After going through the averments in the complaint, written version filed by the Ops, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed as referred above.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. On the date of hearing of arguments in the appeal i.e. 19.12.2017, none was present on behalf of the appellant, however, Mr. Sarup Singh, Advocate was present on behalf of the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and have carefully gone through the record of the District Forum with his assistance.
9. As per the grounds of appeal, it has been stated that the District Forum has not properly appreciated the evidence on the record and has wrongly dismissed the complaint. As per the pleadings of the parties, the complainant had opened his Zero Balance Student Savings Account # 029700-15000-11190 under PNB Vidyarthi Scheme on 21.6.2012 and in this regard, pass book was issued to the complainant, which is on the record as Ex. C-1. In this regard a letter dated 16.8.2013 was issued by the father of the complainant as complainant was minor at that time in which it First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 6 has been stated that a sum of Rs. 112/- on account of ATM Annual Maintenance Charges has been wrongly deducted. Ex. C-6 is the PNB Vidyarthi Zero Balance Savings Account scheme under which ATM/debit card charges are free and incidental charges are also free/nil. Therefore, the annual maintenance charges and incidental charges have been wrongly deducted by the Ops. However, the Ops has placed on the record the circular No. 44 dated 3.8.2012 relating to PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account under which attractive freebies/concessions are admissible:-
"5. Attractive Freebies/Concessions: In addition, the following freebies are also admissible:
i) Demand drafts for all types of fees/examination fees :
Free of cost
ii) Initial Deposit Amount : The account will be opened without any initial deposit, i.e., it will be Zero Balance Saving Fund Account.
iii) Incidental Charges : NIL
iv) Ledger Folio Charges : NIL
v) Retail Internet Banking Services : Free
vi) Intersol transactions including cash withdrawal/
deposits : Free
vii) ATM Card / Debit Card : Free
However, annual maintenance charges are to be recovered.First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 7
viii) Cheque Book Facility : Free (40 cheque leaves in a year)"
In case we go through Column No. (vii), it says ATM Card/Debit Card 'free', however, annual maintenance charges are to be recovered. To arrest the misuse of the Vidyarthis Account, in this regard, para No. 8 of the said instructions is relevant, which is reproduced as under:-
"8. To arrest the misuse of the Vidyarthi Account, an exceptional report has been customized in menu option CTRPT. All concerned are advised to generate the exceptional report through menu option CTRPT and Incumbent Incharge is to scrutinize it along with the other daily morning reports. If a student account appears in the exceptional report then Incumbent Incharge shall inquire about the conduct of the account and should go in for getting the account fully KYC compliant and get it converted into general category. This step shall significantly reduce the chances of fraudulent transactions in student accounts."
10. Then Master Circular No. 68 of 2013 was issued by the Bank vide Ex. D-5 and similar instructions were again reproduced in the said circular. Then other circular dated 27.8.2014, therefore, the Ops had charged ATM Annual Maintenance Charges as per the circular issued by the Head Office of the Ops. No doubt that at the time of opening of the PNB Vidyarthi Saving Fund Account by the complainant, there was no annual maintenance charges of ATM but lateron it was introduced, accordingly, charges have First Appeal No. 544 of 2017 8 been charged by the Ops. There is no restrain that once the instructions have been issued by the Ops, it remain operative for all times to come. The Ops reserve their right to review their instructions from time to time and these instructions have been issued to restrict freebies given to the student.
11. In the grounds of appeal in para No. 4, it has been stated that Ops had changed the status of the account of the complainant to general category without giving notice to the complainant. However, this plea was not taken by the complainant in the complaint. In case no such relief was sought for by the appellant/complainant in the complaint, such a new plea cannot be taken in the appeal, therefore, this plea of the appellant/complainant first time in the appeal is not maintainable.
12. No other point was raised.
13. Sequel to the above, we do not see any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
15. Order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER January 03, 2018.
as