CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJ KUMAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHORT question arising in this appeal directed against impugned order dated 16th June, 2005 is whether the appellant -bank was expected or supposed to intimate each and every consumer who was having its account with it about the deduction of service charges in respect of any account which was below minimum balance requirement or general notice in the premises of the Bank was sufficient for compliance of the service of banking being provided by the appellant.

(2.) VIDE impugned order dated 16.6.2005 the appellant has been directed to credit all the amount of service charges debited in the account of the complainant from 27.12.1999 to 4.4.2003 the date when the respondent came to know about the increased minimum balance requirement and Rs. 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 2,000 towards cost of litigation.

(3.) AT the very outset we may point out that every consumer is an independent consumer. Any account holder having Saving Bank account with any bank is not supposed to visit the bank each and every day to read the general notice on the premises of the bank. Whenever there is a change in rules particularly of the type one in question i.e., increase in the minimum balance requirement subjecting it to service charges such information should be sent to each and every consumer personally. Any kind of shortcoming or imperfection amounts to deficiency in service as contemplated under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act which means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.