Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/1140/2012

Saraswati Gas Agency - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.K.Sheoran

30 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR.

 

                                                                                                Complaint No. 1140 of 2012

                                                                                                Date of institution: 22.10.2012 

                                                                                                Date of decision: 30.06.2017

 

Saraswati Gas Agency, Sassauli Road, Amarpuri Colony, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its proprietor Shri Issar Singh, aged about 62 years, resident of village Sudhal, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Branch Office:  Gobindpuri Raod, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager, Shri Vikas Budhiraja.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd. Regional Office: Sector -9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Regional Manager.

 

                                                                                           …Respondents     

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND…..…… MEMBER.

                       

 

Present:           Shri V.S. Sheoran, Advocate for complainant.

                       Shri KK Gupta, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the respondent (hereinafter will be referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts, as alleged in the complaint are that complainant firm is an agency in the name and style of Saraswati Gas Agency situated at ITI Yamuna Nagar  and the firm in question is having its account bearing No. 024705000060 with the OPs Bank and the complainant used to prepare demand draft regularly through the OP No.1 in favour of BPCL for LPG collection and the OP No.1 used to receive the commission from the complainant regularly. On 16.10.2012, complainant deposited a sum of Rs.1,11,000/- with the OP No.1 for preparing demanding draft in favour of BPCL for LPG collection but the complainant did not receive the LPG from the BPCL on 16.10.2012, then the complainant contacted the BPCL and inquired about the matter, upon which they stated that they did not receive the order and amount, so delivery of LPG was not done due to which complainant suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant again deposited an amount of Rs.90,000/- for LPG collection and then the complainant demanded statement of accounts for the reason and on perusal of the same it was revealed that OP Bank has already charged an amount of Rs.93497.97/- on 16.10.2012. Beside this, an amount of Rs.55236.68/- has also been  wrongly and illegally charged from the complainant. Upon which, the complainant asked the OP Bank to return the same but the OPs refused to do the same. Hence, there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing  the OPs to refund of Rs.93497.97/-  and Rs.55236.68/- which has been illegally deducted on various dates by the OP No.1 and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs Bank filed its written statement jointly by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is  no relationship of consumer and supplied between the parties because complainant is a firm and account of the complainant with the OP Bank is also current account in the name of firm which is used for commercial purpose, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; the complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint due to his own act and conduct; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts, the true facts, are that complainant has a current account with the OPs in the name of his firm which was used for commercial purpose. Moreover, the complainant has been at fault to maintain minimum balance of Rs.10,000/-  as per terms and conditions of the bank. Normally, the complainant used to deposit amount of business transactions and on the same day the said amount was debited and due to this the OP Bank could not get any opportunity to debit the charges in the said account for the transaction more than 1 lac in a month and as per terms and conditions of the bank because cash deposit limit allowed in the said account was Rs.1 lac monthly without any charges from the base branch. It has been further mentioned that the complainant never left any amount in his account over night for recovery of charges so the necessary penalty could not be debited in the said amount from time to time. However, on 16.10.2012, the complainant deposited Rs.1,11,000/- in his account for issuance of demand draft on the next day but since the charges were outstanding in his account so entries for all the due charges were debited on the same day. Further more, the bank used to charge commission for demand draft in the form of monthly charges which exceed the free limit of 1 lac in the month. The said charges has already been debited from the account of the complainant as and when the bank could get the opportunity to debit the same and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken into the preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A and rough calculation on plain paper as Annexure C1, photocopy of account statement for the period from 16.01.2012 to 16.10.2012 as Annexure C2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence short affidavit of Branch Manager as RW/A, photocopy of application form for opening current account as Annexure R1, photocopy of PAN CARD as Annexure R2, photocopy of letter dated 13.12.2004 as Annexure R3, photocopy of cheque amounting Rs.25000/- dated 15.12.2004 as Annexure R4, photocopy of schedule of charges as Annexure R5, attested copy of account statement with effect from 01.04.2012 to 31.10.2012 as Annexure R6 to R12 and closed the evidence on  behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file very carefully and minutely.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant firm M/s Saraswati Gas Agency was having a current account bearing No. 024705000060  with the OPs Bank since December, 2004 which is duly evident from copy of application Form for opening current account (Annexure R1), further from the photocopy of letter dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure R-3), photocopy of cheque  dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure R4). It is also not disputed that complainant firm M/s Saraswati Gas Agency  is doing the business of LPG with BPCL company (Bharat Petroleum).

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that the OPs Bank has wrongly and illegally deducted the amount of Rs.93497.97/- and has also further deducted the amount of Rs.55236.68/- for the period of January to September, 2012 from the account of the complainant firm which constitutes the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on its part. Learned counsel for the complainant, draw our attention towards rough account statement (Annexure C1) photocopy of account statement (Annexure C2) and argued that from these documents it is clear that the OP Bank has deducted the above said amount from the account of the complainant. Lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

9.                     On the other hand,  learned counsel for the Ops argued at length that the complainant firm is running his current account since December, 2004 which is duly evident from the photocopy of application Form for opening current account (Annexure R1) and photocopy of letter dated 13.12.2004 (Annexure R3) photocopy of cheque dated 15.12.2004 (Annexure R4). The present complaint has been filed in the year, October, 2012 which is hopelessly time barred. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant Firm was having current account with the OPs for doing commercial transaction for commercial purpose of doing the business of LPG with the BPCL and as such this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and draw our attention towards the definition mentioned under Section 2(i)(d)(ii)  of the Consumer Protection Act, which is reproduce here as under:

“consumer means any person who-

2.  [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose].

and further learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant firm is bound to pay the transaction charges whatsoever charged by the OPs Bank from time to time on account of Demand Draft charges, for not maintaining the minimum balance in the account etc. and draw our attention towards the schedule of charges (Annexure R-5) and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint and referred the case law tilted as “Yamini Exports Vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank, Consumer Case No. 140/2015 decided on 15.12.2015 by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and M/s Narayana Traders Vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank, consumer case No. 139 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 (NC).

10.                   After hearing both the parties and going through the case law referred by the counsel for the OPs, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Bank. From the perusal of the account statement (Annexure C-1) and (Annexure R6 to R12), it is duly evident that complainant firm is having his current account with the OPs Bank since December, 2004 which is duly evident from the copy of current account opening Form (Annexure R-1), but the present complaint has been filed in the month of October 2012 i.e. after a gap of eight (8) years in which the complainant firm has challenged the charges of transaction as well as other charges charged by the OP Bank and the same is hopelessly time barred. Further, from the perusal of account statement, it is also duly evident that there are number less transaction between the parties which cannot be taken into consideration by this Forum. On the other angle also, from the perusal of schedule of charges (Annexure R5) placed on file by the OPs bank, it is clear that OPs Bank has rightly charged the transaction charges, whatsoever from the complainant firm. Further, we have perused the current account statement (Annexure C-2/R6 to R12) from which it is duly evident that transactions between the complainant and the OPs Bank are of commercial nature as the complainant firm is doing the business of LPG of BPCL Company for earning profit. Since, the services of the OPs Bank have been availed by the complainant firm for business/commercial purpose, so complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum under the consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the provisions of Section 2(1)(d) (ii) reproduced above. Although the explanation appended to the section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act, provides that the “Commercial purpose” does not include the services availed by the person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. However, the above noted explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood.  The facts of the case law referred by the counsel for the OPs titled as “Yamini Exports Vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank, Consumer Case No. 140/2015 decided on 15.12.2015 by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and M/s Narayana Traders Vs. Dhanlaxmi Bank, consumer case No. 139 of 2015 decided on 15.12.2015 (NC) (Supra) are fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Even the same view has been held in another case in CC No.11 of 2007 Samkit Art And Craft Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India and others decided on 14.10.2014 (NC), the complainant which was engaged in the business of export had obtained cash credit limit and term loan facility from the State Bank of India. He filed a complaint alleging deficiency on the part of Bank in the services rendered to him. It was held by this Commission that obtaining cash credit facility for the purpose of export of goods was a commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant company was not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.

11.                   Resultantly, in the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove his case that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Bank. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate court i.e. Civil Court for redressal of his grievances , if any so advised. Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Pronounced in open court.                                         

Dated: 30.06.2017.                                                      (ASHOK KUMAR GARG),

                                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF

                                                                                    YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI

                       

 

 

                      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)            (S.C. SHARMA)          

                        MEMBER                                            MEMBER