PRASHANT KUMAR NAG Vs. ICICI BANK LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 29.8.2009, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in complaint case No. 73/08, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein has been dismissed, observing that neither there was any deficiency in service nor any unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent, for which compensation can be awarded.

(2.) IN nutshell facts of the case are that the appellant herein was having a Savings Bank Account with the respondent Bank having No. 016101503213. When in the month of July, 2006, he had seen statement of account, then it was found that there were entries regarding deduction of non -transactional charges from his Savings Account. That statement of account was sent to the complainant and he was asked to pay non -transactional charges. On the said head Rs. 842 per month were deducted by the Bank without obtaining any permission or instruction from the account holder, nor any information was given to him regarding any such rule for deduction of such amount. Ultimately on 15.9.2006, he moved an application for closer of the account. He was informed by the Bank that he would be required to deposit Rs. 940 more and was required to return passbook and cheque book. The ATM card was also required to be destroyed. He followed those instructions and deposited Rs. 940 in cash, in the Bank and then statement of account showing nil balance was provided to him and the account was closed w.e.f. 15.9.2006. But then again in the month of December, 2006 he was asked to pay non -transactional charges at the same rate from September, 2006. That was unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the bank with its customer and so the complaint was filed before District Forum seeking compensation of Rs. 7,00,000, on account of this deficiency in service.

(3.) IN reply, the respondent Bank has averred that at the time of opening of the account, rules and regulation of the Bank and terms of operating the account were explained to the complainant and it was explained that how much amount was necessary to be kept in the account as minimum balance. He failed to do so and that is why non -transactional charges were payable, which was deducted and there was no deficiency in service in deducting that amount. On the basis of this plea, it was prayed that the complaint has no substance and is to be dismissed.