Haryana

Panchkula

CC/258/2021

PUNIT BHARDWAJ. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN M.VOHRA.

05 Jun 2023

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA.

 

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	258 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	08.06.2021
Date of Decision	:	05.06.2023

 

 

Punit Bhardwaj aged about 56 years son of Late Sh. Ram Rattan Bhardwaj, resident of House No.18, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                        ..….Complainant

Versus                                                                  

ICICI Bank, S.C.F.-5, Sector-2, Panchkula through its Manager/ authorized person.

                                                                       ……Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

                        Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member. 

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Krishan M.Vohra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the OP.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the services of the OP had been hired by the complainant  by opening three saving accounts in the OP’s bank under the category of wealth account, the details of which are as under:-

i.      Account no.251101503220 was opened on 17.12.2018 with his   father.

ii.      Account no.251101500257 on 02.07.2013.

iii.     Account no.251101000414 on 15.01.2019.

                It is stated that the complainant was told, at the time of opening of the said wealth accounts, by the OP that the wealth account had some additional benefits, such as the OP would not change anything to make demand draft, no transaction charges would be charged by the OP; a relationship  manager would be assigned to the complainant, extra limit would be given on debit card comparatively to normal savings account etc. on the condition  that the said account was to be opened with an opening  balance of Rs.10,00,000/- or more as opening deposit. It is stated that the complainant is a stage 4 tongue cancer patient undergoing treatment since January, 2020 and that his father was getting the treatment from doctors in United States of America, Israel and Apolo Hospital at Mumbai, Maharashtra. While both the complainant and his father were getting treatment, the OP had started levying cash transaction charges without his consent or any intimation to the complainant or his father illegally. No notice was also issued by the OP to the complainant before changing the terms and conditions of the said saving accounts. It is stated that the OP has levied an amount of Rs.3,85,348.90 in total in the above said three accounts, the details of which are as follows:-

1. The OP has levied Rs.10,056.99 from Account no. 251101503220 on 29.01.2021.
2. The OP has levied Rs.1,84,596.67 in total from Account No. 251101500257 i.e. Rs.2,501.66 on 22.02.2021, Rs.59,600.72 on 29.01.2021, Rs.47,192.56 on 08.01.2021, Rs.63968.02 on 08.01.2021 and Rs.11,333.71 on 23.12.2020.
3. The OP has levied Rs.1,90,695.24 in total from account no. 251101000414 i.e. Rs.69.78 on 20.03.2021, Rs.1.73 on 22.02.2021, Rs.52,780.68 on 29.01.2021, Rs.78,250.52 on 08.01.2021, Rs.29,813.23 on 08.01.2021 and Rs.29,149.30 on 23.12.2020.

The complainant approached the OP’s Branch Manager as well as the relationship manager multiple times and requested them to refund Rs. 3,85,348.90, which was illegally levied by the OP unilaterally and illegally. The complainant also gave a written complaint to the OP, which was duly received by the Branch Manager but the OP kept on delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant is regularly banking with the OP since the opening of the said accounts, but no cash transaction charges were levied by the OP until December 2020. It is averred that in order to increase the profits in the times of Pandemic-Covid-19, the Op has started levying charges illegally and unilaterally. The OP has failed to refund the amount of the complainant with interest despite making various visits and numerous requests.Due to the act and conduct on the part of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed written statement contesting the complaint by raising preliminary objection that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands since he has concealed the true fact.  It is stated that the complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint on false allegations without any material on record against the OP. The Present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as the complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer” as defined in Section 2(d)(ii) of the aforesaid Act, 1986 and Section 2(7)(ii) of the aforesaid Act, 2019.

                It is admitted that the complainant had hired the services of the OP by opening the wealth saving accounts but he had started using the same for his business purposes so as to avail the extra benefits as admissible under the wealth account. It is submitted that the complainant has been running the business of retail outlet of petroleum products under the name & style “Shiva HP Centre” Zirakpur-Patiala Road, Village-Nabha, NH-64, Zirakpur, District-Mohali and that he had deposited the cash amount in said wealth account as received/ earned through the sale of petroleum product and thus, the complainant has used the said wealth account for commercial purposes.

        It is submitted that the complainant had approached the OP and after going through the terms and conditions of the wealth saving accounts, he had opened three savings accounts with the OP vide account numbers i.e.251101503220, 251101500257 & 251101000414. The basic purpose of the said accounts was to maintain saving amount in the said accounts and only for the said reasons, the OP had also given some additional benefits to the complainant on the said accounts. The complainant was clearly informed that he could not use the said accounts for any other purpose like business transactions  at any point of time and, in case, the complainant would use the said accounts for any commercial purpose, the OP would levy the charges as the per norms of the bank. Thereafter, only after acknowledging all the terms and conditions of the said accounts, the complainant had opened the aforesaid three accounts, thus, the complainant is estopped the filing the present complaint.

                The complainant is a partner along with his father in M/s Shiva HP Centre, who has been dealing in petroleum products services like sale of petrol and diesel and has been earning huge amount approximately amounting to more than Rs.10.00 lacs per day. It is submitted that in order to earn more interest from the said accounts, the complainant had started routing the cash transactions, through the said accounts which he has been earning from the sale of petroleum products.

                The complainant was asked several times by the OP to stop the practice of depositing of cash amount as earned from the said petroleum pump but he did not pay any heed to the advice of the OP. It is submitted that after giving the ample opportunities to the complainant to stop the routing cash transactions through the said account, the OP had started levying cash transactions charges and accordingly, an amount of Rs.3,85,348/- was debited from the wealth account of the complainant as cash transactions charges. It is submitted that the terms and conditions of the said wealth account has not been changed by the OP. It is specifically denied that the complainant had approached the OP’s, the branch manager as well as the relationship Manager multiple times and requested them to refund Rs.3,85,348.90, which was illegally levied  by the OP unilaterally and illegally. In this regard, it is submitted that nothing was levied by the OP illegally and unilaterally and all the aforesaid charges had been levied by the OP in accordance with the norms of bank. It is also specifically denied that the complainant had also given written complaint to the OP.  It is further specifically denied that in order to increase the profits in the times of Pandemic Covid-19, the OP has started levying charges illegally and unilaterally. It is further submitted that the complainant started routing the cash transactions of his business through the said wealth accounts and by doing the same, the complainant had changed the very purpose of the said wealth accounts. Accordingly,  the complainant was requested  time and again by the OP to change his behavior and not to use the said accounts for any commercial purpose, but inspite of reminding several times, the complainant did not stop using the said accounts for business transactions. Therefore, the complainant himself has compelled the OP to take necessary action and to levy the aforesaid charges. It is submitted that once, the OP had already requested the complainant number of times, no further consent or intimation was required to be given to the complainant at the end of the OP.  On merits, pleas and assertions made in the preliminary objections have been reiterated and it has been prayed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

 3.            To prove the case, the complainant has tendered affidavits as Annexure C-A along with document Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents as Annexure R-1 to R-4 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsels for both the parties, complainant and gone through the entire record including the written arguments filed by the complainant as well as OP, minutely and carefully.

5.               The sole grievance of the complainant is qua the levying of cash transactions charges, amounting to Rs.3,85,348.90, by OP in the three wealth saving accounts in question.

                During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the averments as made in the complaint  as also in the affidavit of complainant Annexure C-A has contended that the cash transactions charges amounting to Rs.3,85,348.90 were debited, from the wealth accounts in question, without any intimation or without the consent of the complainant. It is contended that the levying of the cash transactions charges amounting to Rs.3,85,348.90 from the wealth saving account of the complainant was neither valid nor justified and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting relief as claimed for in the complaint.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP while reiterating the averments as made in the written statement as also in the affidavit(Annexure R-A) has taken the plea that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. The learned counsel on merits, contended that the complainant was duly apprised about the terms and conditions, governing the operation of said saving wealth accounts in question whereby the operation of wealth saving account was not permissible for any commercial transactions. In this regard, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the terms and conditions as contained in Annexure R-1. It is contended that the amount of Rs.3,85,348 was validly charged as cash transactions charges by the OP because the complainant had violated the express terms and conditions governing the operation of wealth saving account, by making deposit and withdrawal of the heavy amount in cash. The learned counsel contended that the complainant did not stop, despite notice to him, from depositing the amount in cash which was received by him from the sale of the petroleum products at his petrol pump, in the wealth saving accounts in question and thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous and baseless.

7.Before looking into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to mention here that the plea taken by the OP that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer, does not carry any merit in it as the complainant had admittedly availed the services of OP vide three saving wealth account; thus, the plea is rejected being baseless and meritless.

8.             On merits, the defence of the OP is based on two grounds:-

1. That the complainant was apprised, before opening the wealth saving accounts in question, about the terms and conditions  governing the operation of the wealth saving accounts in question, whereby the operation of the same was not permissible for any commercial purpose.
2. That the complainant did not stop from depositing the amount in cash, in wealth saving accounts, which was received by him from the sale of petroleum products at his petrol pump.

9.Regarding the terms and conditions governing the operation of the wealth saving accounts in question, the OP has placed reliance upon Annexure R-1 which allegedly contains the terms and conditions.

10.We have perused Annexure R-1, which pertains to account no. 48000767037 whereas the wealth saving account in question are 251101503220, 251101500257 and 251101000414 and thus, the reliance placed upon Annexure R-1 is of no help to the case of the OP. Further, the terms and conditions, appended with Annexure R-1, reveals that the same have been printed with small alphabet/letters having very small size, which are difficult to peruse and read minutely even by a young person having no issue qua his eyesight. The size/font of the printed words is so small which can’t be read without the aid of a magnifying glass. Therefore, the OP cannot be permitted to draw any kind of benefit out of the said terms and conditions as relied upon by them. Furthermore, the terms and conditions appended with Mark ‘A’ are also of no help to the case of the OP as the same did not authorize and empower the OP to levy the cash transactions charges.

11.Coming to the second plea, which is about the issuance of notice to the complainant asking him to stop the practice of depositing of the amount in cash in wealth saving account, we find that  no notice, whatsoever, as alleged, has been adduced on record by the OP. It is well settled legal proposition that mere bald assertions, which are not corroborated and substantiated by any adequate, cogent and credible evidence do not carry any evidentiary value.

12.In view of the above discussion, we find force and substance in the contentions of the complainant that levying of cash transactions charges amounting to Rs.3,85,348.92 by the OP was neither valid, legal nor justified.

13.On the other hand, the plea taken by the OP has been found baseless and meritless and thus, OP held deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

14.In relief, the complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.3,85,348.90 along with interest. A compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- has also been claimed on account of mental agony and harassment and litigations charges respectively.

15.As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.3,85,348.90/-to the complainant, along with interest @ 9% per annum(S.I.) w.e.f. the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. 
2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.5,500/- as litigation charges.

 

 16.  The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 05.06.2023

 

 

 

     Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav           Dr.Sushma Garg          Satpal

                  Member                        Member                         President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                             Satpal

                                            President

 

CC.258 of 2021

Present:             Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Krishan M.Vohra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the OP.

 

                       Written arguments filed by the OP. Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 05.06.2023 for orders.

 

Dt.24.05.2023

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav      Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President

 

Present:             Complainant in person alongwith Sh. Krishan M.Vohra, Advocate for the complainant.

                        Sh. Ammish Goel, Advocate for the OP.

 

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OP with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dt.05.06.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav       Dr.Sushma Garg             Satpal

                       Member                            Member                         President