NIRMAL ARORA Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order, we propose to dispose the above noted revision petitions involving exactly similar question of law and facts.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, facts relevant for the disposal of above noted revision petitions are that the petitioners in the respective petitions filed independent complaints against the respondent opposite party alleging deficiency in service in relation to their respective accounts. It is the case of the complainants that both of them opened fixed deposit accounts for Rs.40,000/- each with the opposite party and alongwith the fixed deposit, zero balance saving accounts were also opened. The fixed deposit accounts was opened in the year 1998 and the FDRs were renewed from time to time, for the maturity amount. The OP, however, on maturity of the last FDR, without any authorisation from the petitioners renewed their respective FDRs for the face value and unilaterally transferred the interest accrued i.e. Rs.9293.24/- on each of FDR in their respective saving bank accounts. Not only this, thereafter, the OP made quarterly deduction of Rs.750/-, Rs.830/- and Rs.830/- each by making debit entry in the respective accounts of the complainants on the ground that they had failed to maintain the minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- in their saving back accounts. When the complainants came to know about this, they contacted the OP bank and they were told that since they had failed to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- each in their respective saving bank accounts, they have been levied with the service charge. The complainants were also told that if they were not satisfied with the above condition, they may close their accounts. The complainants accordingly closed their accounts and the opposite party after deduction of Rs.830/- as service charges as on January 28 paid the remaining balance in the respective accounts to the petitioners. This led to the filing of the consumer complaints.

(3.) The consumer complaints were resisted by the bank. According to the respondent bank, they had rightly deducted the service charges from the respective saving account of the petitioners as they had failed to maintain the minimum balance.