Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 25/09/2009 passed in Consumer Complaint No.386/2006, Mr.Sham Sunder Vohra V/s ICICI Bank Ltd. & Ors., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Additional Mumbai Suburban (‘Forum below’ in short). 

Appellant/original Complainant had made certain grievances about alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents/original Opposite Parties in not allowing to operate trading  account as well as De-mat account until certain requirements are fulfilled and grievance is also made about policy of the Bank on account of restricted trading on certain shares which are registered with Bombay Stock Exchange (‘BSE’ in short) as well as the policy called as system blocks information adopted by the Bank for the 252 shares of ‘ISPAT ALLOYS Ltd.’  sent for dematerialization on 17.09.2005.  Hence consumer complaint was filed on 18.09.2006, which stood dismissed and aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the original Complainant.

We brought to the notice of Appellant/original Complainant that the consumer complaint covers different instances not connected with each other for the alleged deficiency in service or so called unfair trade practice and they cannot be clubbed together in one consumer complaint and therefore, it is for him to elect under the instance/transaction the consumer complaint should continue.  He insisted upon prosecuting the complaint as it is.

It is the grievance of the Appellant/Complainant that the Respondent Bank engaged itself into an ‘unfair trade practice’ by not allowing him to trade in all of the scripts traded on BSE and NSE and as a result, whenever the Appellant had to sell such scripts, he had to request the Bank to allow it for trading.  As a broker, the Bank was earning its brokerage and therefore it should be left to the customer to select the script.  Policing is not the job of the bank.

It is grievance of the Bank that without completing the formalities the Complainant wanted to trade from the account and another Demat account and another Bank account which was a saving account.  It is a case of the Appellant that on 18.08.2006 he received an e-mail from the Bank requesting for compliance of certain formalities i.e. fresh application form, fresh client agreement, identity proof, address, photograph and PAN etc.  According to Complainant the Bank  could not ask for such fresh documents, particularly when those documents were already with the Bank and perhaps lost by the Bank and therefore, according to Complainant for such fresh documents or requirements to reverify all these documents and for non-compliance thereof to suspend the account is an unfair trade practice on the part of the Respondent Bank.  It is revealed from the record that Respondent Bank was asking for recompliance all these formalities in view of the directions from controlling authorities – SEBI and NSDL.  Thrust of the Complainant is on the fact that once he had submitted all these documents and even if the bank had lost it or misplaced those documents, the Bank cannot ask him to resubmit all those documents or reverify all those documents again.  We are afraid, such contention is untenable.  The bank has a right for asking to do the compliances, supra.  It is not by way of harassment, but it is by way of offering security to the customers and further to comply the statutory directions issued by the controlling authorities.  Under the circumstances, Opposite Party cannot be held guilty of either deficiency in service or as engaged in an unfair trade practice.

It is submitted by the appellant that 252 shares of ISPAT Alloys Ltd. were submitted for dematerialization vide DRF/No.7136556 on 17.09.2005 with the Opposite Party No.3 – ICICI Bank Ltd. and same was received by the Bank for transmission to the Registrar as transfer agent of the Company, given on October 18, 2005.  Grievance was made with the Senior Officials at the Corporate Office of the Bank, but the bank never bothered to explain the reason of delay till filing of consumer complaint.  The shares were trading @INR 22.10ps and the Complainant could not sell the same.  As far as this grievance is concerned, here the grievance is about the delay in lodgement and processing the complaint.  According to the bank there were certain discrepancies while processing the request, particularly in respect of discrepancies in the shares and therefore, such delay occurred.  In fact, there is no delay, but there cannot be any deficiency in service on that count on the part of the Bank.  Forum below while dealing with this issue evaluated the facts covering the same and pointed out that there were certain discrepancies in the DRF No.7136556 dated 17/09/2005 due to which Bank had to contact the Complainant and had sent a revised DRF No.7136153 dated 10.10.2005 for 252 shares of Balasore Alloyes EQ and this DRF was processed by the bank immediately thereafter.  This factual situation is not in dispute.  Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of the bank on this count could be alleged.  Furthermore, as far as these banking services are concerned, for trading the shares are concerned, certainly such services are hired for commercial purpose. Therefore, in view of a decision of Apex Court in the matter of Economic Transport Organisation V/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., reported in 2010 CTJ (361) SC, the appellant/complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and no consumer dispute would accordingly lie.

As far as grievance about placing of cheque of dividend of Sundram Tax Saver Mutual Fund is concerned, there is a discrepancy.  The grievance of the appellant is that while placing the said cheque (due to discrepancy) in the suspension account, he ought to have been informed about the same and failure on the part of the Bank  amounts to deficiency in service.  We are not at all convinced by such submission.   Once, the Complainant came to know, which he ought to know from monthly statement or regular statement, there is no necessity to inform separately about it.   Therefore, in absence of any legal obligation or a contractual liability on the part of Bank to inform separately to the Complainant about transferring the amount under the said cheque in the suspense account, no deficiency in service on part of the Bank could be alleged. 

It is also grievance of the Appellant/Complainant that while dealing of trading account certain disclaimer or  acceptance of conditions appeared and unless he accepts those conditions which are in the nature of acceptance or acknowledging the same, the Complainant was not allowed to trade by operating  his account.  It is the grievance of the Complainant that once he had signed the contract while opening of trading account no such fresh acceptance of the terms is necessary.  Therefore, refusal on the part of the Bank to allow to log on for trading is an unfair trade practice on the part of Bank.  We find this submission devoid of any substance.    Firstly, once the precondition to allow to log refers to fulfillment of certain conditions and if logging was not allowed for want of fulfilling such conditions then it will not be a deficiency in service on part of the Bank.  Furthermore.  If it is categorized as deficiency in service then again in view of the Apex Court Judgement referred earlier since the services are hired for commercial purposes, it will not be a consumer dispute within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act 1986 since the appellant is not a consumer.

In the course of arguments, we did enquire from the Appellant/original Complainant, when he was not satisfied with the policy of the Opposite Party Bank and about the services rendered by them, why he preferred to continue with such Bank instead of going for another Bank offering similar services.  His answer was that in principle said bank ought not to have denied such services though he already wisely switched over to another Bank and is availing services of other Bank.  It is just like thrusting himself on the service provider bank. 

For the reasons stated above, we cannot find any fault in the impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint.  Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

    (i)               Appeal stands dismissed.

  (ii)               However, in the circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.