By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

                The case of the complainant is as follows: -

1.         The complainant approached the opposite party and opened an account on 08/12/2017 as account No.021805001291 in the name of V.K. Communications. He started all the financial transactions of V K communications through the account.  At the time of commencing the account, the people of opposite party stated that the opposite party is the   proper bank for commencing account for the business purpose.   It was said to him that there will not be any inconvenience or hardship for transferring amount to the account or depositing in the account.  It is further stated that the opposite party is collecting only reasonable amount towards ATM charge. Impressed by the words of the opposite party the complainant started account with the opposite party.

2.         The complainant submitted that till 2019 December, there was no any sort of issues in the business transaction with the opposite party and so the transaction was carried out without any hurdles.     Thereafter during 2019 December 26 it was found that an amount of Rupees 5371.33 /- was debited from the account of the complainant maintained with the opposite party and on notice of the same the complainant approached the opposite party people. But there was no proper response from the opposite party. Ultimately   the complainant approached the manager of the opposite party. But there was no proper reply and further it was informed that they are prepared to refund the amount. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant presented an application for the refund of money through a format. On 16/01/2020 again debited Rs. 12,737/- as cash deposit charge during December 2019 plus GST and branch access charge as Rs.1,457/-. Thereafter on 17/01/2020 debited IMPS charge and GST was as Rs. 414.70/-, on 24/01/2019   an amount of Rs.6,174/-, branch access charge December 2019 and GST amount Rs.803.25/- IMPS charge during 2020 January Rs. 214.78/-. The same was informed the opposite party through messages. In effect a total amount of Rs.27,173/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant which is without the knowledge or permission of the complainant.  The said account was misused by opposite party and thus the complainant lost huge amount from the account.

3.         On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party and opposite parties entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party denied the entire allegations and averment in the complaint and the complaint is not maintainable and liable to pay cost of the opposite parties.

4.         The opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. As per the version of the opposite party, complainant is a business man and he is the proprietor of V. K. Communications.   Complainant is holding a current account with the ICICI bank for managing his business transaction. Hence the subject matter bank A/C being a current A/C issued only for the business transaction and the complainant had enjoyed the same for flourishing of his business transactions the same will not enjoy the exemption of “earning the livelihood” provided under the definition of “consumer.” 

5.         The opposite party contended that the prayer of the complainant is to recover Rs.27,173/- allegedly collected by ICICI bank. The question is to be adjudicated is purely limited to the” settlement of account” among to adjudicating parties. As defined and adjudged by various courts including the Apex Court of India, the question of settlement of account is outside the purview of Consumer Protection Act and that to be adjudged by a competent civil court and  the same is not maintainable before this honorable Commission.

6.         The opposite party submitted that varies choices in the current A/C are offered by the opposite party to help the customers to obtain maximum benefits, while operating the same.  Each variant of the current A/C is unique and is operated as per the terms and conditions of the same.  The monthly average balance (MAB) required to be maintained and the transaction of pattern in each variant are also vary from each other. The current account variant held by the complainant was Made 2 Orders A/C (M20), which had maintained the holder of the A/C to maintain a specified MAB and allowed to have limited free transactions.  The transaction pattern and balance maintained by the complainant in the account was not in accordance with the conditions of M20. 

7.         Hence, the central team of the opposite party had sent communication on 15^th October 2019 to all customers of the alike nature, regarding current A/C reprising   to the suitable variant.  Along with that mail we had specifically communicated the schedule of charges of new variant.  After receipt of this mail the petitioner had personally approached opposite party and the said fact were clarified and conveyed to the petitioner. Hence with effect from 15/11/2019 the variant of the account has been revised to a new pricing card re-priced current account (REPCA). As per new variant the account holder not required to maintain monthly average balance and cash deposit free limit was nil.

8.         The complainant continued depositing cash in his current account over and above the minimum transactions allowed in  REPCA and hence  cash deposit  charges  were debited  in the month of December 2019, January 2020, March 2020 as free cash limit withdrawn from current account.  The opposite party described the charges levied in customers account on various dates as follows:-

9.         The opposite party submitted that when the complainant approached the opposite party demanding the reversal of charges, duly made in the A/C of the complainant, in accordance with the terms and conditions of his reprised current account, the factum of notice issued to complainant was brought to his notice by the opposite party. But the complainant had requested for the reversal of the above charges and the opposite party had assured to processes his request for reversal excluding GST to the head office on service gesture basis, on the submission of a request by the complainant in the prescribed format. But the complainant failed to submit any such application and continued to ignore the calls and what sup messages from the officials of the opposite party.  The opposite party’s email on 13/04/2020 to complainant attaching the form to be submitted by him to enable the opposite party to process his request for reversal of the amount was also not replied.  The facts are being so the opposite party submitted that the contentions to the contrary mentioned in the complaint are denied by the opposite party.

10.       The opposite party submitted that the actions of the opposite party have not caused any loss to the complainant.  The complainant is not entitled   or the reversal of the amount as required by the complainant.  The processing of the request of the complainant for reversal of the amount was entertained by the opposite party only as a service gesture. The complainant understands the same can be processed only on the submission of his application in the prescribed format.  Hence it was the complainant who had delayed the processing of the reversal request and the opposite party had no liability in it. The complainant filed this complaint on experimental, basis with the intention to harass the opposite party when he was aware of the easiest way for processing his request. Hence the opposite party submitted that the complainant is not entitled any amount either as reversal or of money collected by way of compensation. The complainant is liable to pay compensation to the opposite party as the complainant had dragged the opposite party to this Commission and no cause of action has arisen against the opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplarily cost to the opposite party.

11.       The complainant and opposite party filed affidavit and documents.  The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext A1 to A3.  Ext. A1 is copy of complaint submitted by the complainant before the branch manager of opposite party dated 31/01/2020. Ext. A2 is copy of detailed statement of account of the complainant. Ext. A3 is copy of email issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 14/02/2020.  The documents filed on the side of opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4. Ext. B1 is copy of reprised current account (REPCA) details. Ext.B2 (series) is copy of summary of account as on 31/01/2020. Ext.B3 is form for customer request letter for reversal of charges pertaining to altered variant account. Ext.B4 is copy of email.  The complainant and opposite party filed argument note.

12.       Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit, and documents. The following points arise for consideration-  

            1)  Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost?

13.       Point No.1

            The opposite party submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act since he is doing business and the current account with the ICICI bank is for managing his business transaction. The complainant had enjoyed the account for his business transaction for flourishing of his transactions.  So, the same will not enjoy the clause of exemption of earning the “lively hood” under the definition of “Consumer.” In addition to that the prayer of the complainant is that to recover 27,173/- rupees allegedly collected by the ICICI bank. The submission of the opposite party is that the question to be adjudicated is purely limited to the settlement of account among the adjudicating parties. 

14.       But in this case the complainant as the proprietor of VK communications, opened account with the opposite party for the transaction of business and opening an account of financial institution like opposite party cannot be treated as commercial transaction and the account is nothing to do with the commercial activity.  So, the contention the account is part of commercial activity cannot be accepted as contended by the opposite party. The opposite party is a financial institution and the opposite party   illegally collected some amount from the account of the complainant without the knowledge and consent is the grievance of the complainant.  Extraction of money from the account of customer without knowledge and consent is not a matter of settlement of account but comes under the purview of act of unfair trade practice. Since the nature of allegation is being illegal extraction of money from the account of the complainant, we cannot accept the version of the opposite party that the issue between complainant and opposite party is matter of settlement of account.  So, we find that the traction involved in this complaint is not a commercial transaction and not an issue of settlement of account.  Hence, we find that complaint is maintainable before this Commission.

15.       Point No.2 and 3

            The admitted case is that the complainant is maintaining an account with the opposite party. It is also a fact that the opposite party levied charges from the account of the complainant as alleged in the complaint. According to the complainant the levied charge from the account is without his knowledge and consent and the said amount is Rs.27,173/-.  The opposite party admitted in the version that an amount of Rs.26,959.22/- has been levied from the account of the complainant.  The complainant specifically alleges the amount has been withdrawn from the account of the complainant without his consent and knowledge.  The complainant submitted that he has not opted /made to order account or there was no occasion wherein monthly average balance was not available in the account at any occasion. It is also submitted that the opposite party did not collect the amount from the account of complainant due to lack of monthly average balance in the account.  The complainant submitted that he is not aware of the email sent by the central team of the opposite party on 15/10/2019.  The complainant usually contacting the staff of opposite party Mr. Titto Babu or the manager of the opposite party directly.  It is also submitted that simply sending an email to the complainant will not entitle the opposite party any sort of right to credit amount from the account of complainant. The complainant submitted that in the version of the opposite party as per new variant which is came in to force on 15/11/2019, the account holder need not maintained monthly average balance and there is no cash deposit free limit.  The opposite party debited the alleged amount from the account of the complainant after 15/11/2019.

16.       The opposite party submitted that various choices in the current A/C are offered by the opposite party to help the customers to obtain maximum benefit while operating the same.  Each varying account is unique and is operated as per the terms and conditions of the same.  The specific condition is the Monthly Average Balance (MAB) required to be maintained and the transaction pattern in each variant are also vary from each other.  The current A/C variant held by the complainant was made 2 orders A/C (M20) which has mandated the holder of the A/C to maintain a specified MAB and allowed to have limited free transaction. But the transaction pattern and balance maintained by the complainant in the account was not in accordance with the terms and conditions of M20.

17.       Hence the contention of the opposite party is that the central team of opposite party sent communication on 15/10/2019 to all customers of the alike nature, regarding current A/C repricing to the suitable variant along  with that mail the opposite party had specifically communicated the schedule of charges of new variant. After receipt of this mail the petitioner had personally   approached opposite party and the said facts were clarified and conveyed to the petitioner. So, the submission is that with effect from 15/11/2019 the variant of the account has been revised to a new pricing called re-priced current account (REPCA).  As per new variant the account holder not required to maintain monthly average balance and called cash deposit free limit was nil.   The details regarding re priced current A/C available in the website of the opposite party along with IT certificate   is produced before the Commission. However, the opposite party contended that the complainant continued depositing cash in his current account  over and above  the minimum transactions allowed REPCA and hence  cash deposit  charges were debited  in the  month of December 2019, 2020, March 2020 as free cash limits  withdrawn from current account.  The opposite party submitted while the complainant approached demanding the reversal of charges, duly made in the A/C of the complainant, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the reprised current account, the fact of notice issued to him was brought by the opposite party. But, as the complainant had requested for the reversal of the above charges the opposite party had assured to process his request for reversal excluding GST to the head office, on service gesture basis, on the submission of a request by the complainant in prescribed format. But the complainant failed to submit such application and continued to ignore the calls and WhatsApp messages from the officials of the opposite party.  It is further submitted that the email of the opposite party dated 13/04/2020 to complainant attaching the form to be submitted by him to enable the opposite party to process his request for reversals of the amount was also not replied.  The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is aware the reversal of the amount can be processed only on the submission of his application in the prescribed format.  So, the complainant who had delayed the processing of the reversal report and the opposite party is not liable for the same.

18.       The opposite party produced Ext. B1 to B4 to prove the case of the opposite party. But none of this document reveals that there was any sort of communication from the side of complainant to make any alteration in the terms and conditions of operation of account of the complainant. Further it is an admitted fact the opposite party unilaterally made changes in account of the complainant considering the maximum benefit to the account holder. But the complainant submit that he started his account from 08/12/2017 and the issues arises only from 2019 December onwards. In short, there were no issues to the complainant regarding this account up to 2019 December. The opposite party contended the alteration in account was made to benefit the account holder, in effect which resulted loss of an amount according to the complainant Rs.27,173/-. The opposite party submitted various reason to cause variation in the account considering the monthly average balance and cash deposit free limit etc. The opposite party claimed that all the details were furnished to the complainant but except B4, no other document touch with the issue of dispute.  Ext. B4 states that an e-mail was issued by them to the complainant on 15/10/2019 and also mentioned there in oral communication with the complainant expressing for reversal of charges debited to the above mentioned current account varying change subject to a written request for charge reversal from the end of complainant.  The Ext.B4 document further reveals that the complainant had not submitted the request for charge reversal and so they sent a format for the same. The complainant issued Ext.A1 letter to the opposite party on 31/01/2020 seeking explanation for debiting the amount from the account of the complainant.  Ext. A1 reveals that the complainant was not aware of the fact of debiting the amount from the account of the complainant. Hence considering the averments in the affidavit   and documents the nature of account of the complainant was changed by the opposite party without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. More over the opposite party did not reverse the charge collected on account of non-submission of prescribed form placed by the opposite party.  No doubt, the act of the opposite party amounts unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant is entitled to maintain the account at his option and if at all any changes makes in the account and the nature of the account, it is to be done only with the prior consent and knowledge of the account holder.  Hence, we find there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

19.       Point No.3

            The complainant submitted that the opposite party debited an amount of Rs.27,173/- from the account of the complainant under various grounds.  The perusal of documents and affidavits reveals that the opposite party debited the amount from the complainant without the consent and approval of the complainant. The opposite party failed to establish that the variation in the account was made with the approval of complainant. Though the opposite party submitted that the account variation was made for the benefit of the complainant, in effect  the complainant lost  an amount of Rs.27,173/-. The complainant submitted that he opened the account in the year 2017 and there was no complaint against the opposite party till 2019 December. So, it is already found that the complainant lost considerable amount from his account after the variation of the nature of account.  Considering the fact and circumstances we find that the complainant is entitled to refund the amount from the opposite party.  The complainant had issued notice to the opposite party for refund of the amount. Non-filing of proper claim form is not ground for non-refunding of the amount debited from the account of the complainant. Hence, we direct the opposite party to refund Rs.27,173/- to the account of the complainant.  It is already found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  So, the complainant is entitled reasonable amount as compensation.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation on account of defective service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardships to the complainant.  The complainant is also entitled cost of Rs.10,000/-.  The complainant is free to continue the account with the opposite party, as per the terms and conditions of the opposite party.

20.       In the light of above facts and circumstances we allow this complaint as follows: -

1.         The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.27,173/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred and seventy three only) to the complainant with interest  at the rate of  9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint to till this day of this order.

 2.        The opposite parties directed to pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant on account of unfair trade

 practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. 

3.         The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt copy of this order, failing which   the opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the above said entire amount from the date of order to till date of payment.

Dated this 8^th day of June, 2023.

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A3

Ext.A1: Copy of complaint submitted by the complainant before the branch manager opposite party dated 31/01/2020.

Ext.A2: Copy of detailed statement of account of the complainant.

Ext A3: Copy of email issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated

           14/02/2020.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4

Ext.B1: Copy of Reprised current account (REPCA) details.

Ext.B2: Copy of summary of account as on 31/01/2020.

Ext.B3: Form for customer request letter for reversal of charges pertaining to altered

              variant account.

Ext.B4: Copy of email

Mohandasan . K, President

     Preethi Sivaraman.C, Member

     Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member

VPH