STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. M R SAGRIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) District Forum below allowed C.A. No. 120 of 2002 on 25.4.2003 in the following terms :

(2.) At the time of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that as per guidelines issued by the RBI till 31.12.2000 minimum balance in a semi-urban branch always had to be Rs. 250 at the end of the each quarter. If it was less in any quarter, such account was to be debited with Rs. 10 as service charge. This limit of credit balance was enhanced to Rs. 1,000 w.e.f. 1.1.2001 in case of semi-urban areas. And if in any quarter balance was less than Rs. 1,000 service charge of Rs. 50 was to be debited to such account.

(3.) Because account of respondent had been debited with service charge based on these instructions of the RBI, he filed the complaint. While challenging the impugned order Mr. Goel, learned Counsel stated that his client has strictly acted in accordance with the guidelines or the RBI, which governs the entire banking system throughout the length and breadth of the country. Therefore, according to him, Forum below fell into error in passing the impugned order. With a view to advance the case of his client, Mr. Goel also placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Archana M. Kamath Vs. Canara Bank and Anr., (2003) 4 SCC 683. Stand of the appellant was seriously contested and resisted by learned Counsel for the respondent. According to him by unilaterally altering the terms and conditions of the deposit, bank has not only indulged in an unfair trade practice but this is also a clear-cut case of deficiency in service. According to him even if instructions have been issued by the RBI as was argued on behalf of the appellant still before putting those into practice, his client should have been put to notice. Till then depositors like appellant cannot unilaterally be debited with the service charge.