Punjab

StateCommission

FA/981/2013

Kuldeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Narang, Rajni Narula

28 Jan 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PUNJAB       DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.

 

  First Appeal No.981 of 2013                                                    

            Date of institution  :    12.09.2013.   

Date of decision     :    28.01.2015

 

Kuldeep Singh S/o Resham Singh, R/o Village Chak Pakhi, Tehsil Arniwala, District Fazilka.

…….Appellant/Complainant

Versus

1.      Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Kotkapura Road, Sri Muktsar     Sahib.

2.      Chairman/Director, ICICI Bank, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra       Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

 

                                                          …Respondents/Opposite Parties 

First Appeal against the order dated 06.06.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib.

Quorum:- 

          Hon’ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.

                        Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.

                        Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:-

          For the appellant            : Shri Rajesh Narang, Advocate.

          For the respondents      : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH,  PRESIDENT :

                    This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/ complainant against the order dated 06.06.2013 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sri Muktsar Sahib (in short, “District Forum”), vide which the complaint filed by him, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, “the Act”), for directing the respondents/opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.70,000/- and for providing the latest statement of account to him; to pay Rs.20,000/- on account of mental tension, harassment and agony; and Rs.8,800/- as counsel fee and litigation expenses, was dismissed. As per the allegations, made in the complaint, the complainant is maintaining Account No.07880500 0079 with opposite party No.1. During the period 01.03.2011 to 26.09.2011, an amount of Rs.70,000/- (approximately) was deducted from that account, without any specific detail, having been provided to him in spite of repeated requests. This act of the opposite parties caused a great financial loss as well as mental harassment to the complainant. He had been regularly maintaining that account and no amount was due against him. This act of the opposite parties, in deducting the said amount, amounts to deficiency in service.

2.           The complaint was contested by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 did not appear before the District Forum in spite of its service and was proceeded against exparte. Opposite party No.1, in its written reply, denied the allegations made in the complaint and averred that the complainant is having no account in his name with it and the account is in the name of M/s Hamara Pump, which is a commercial establishment and that fact was intentionally concealed by the complainant. The account, in question, is a current account and the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions agreed at the time of opening of the same. By virtue of the revised schedule of charges, certain charges were made applicable and the customers were directed to maintain minimum balance. Those charges, to be paid, were well within the knowledge of the complainant and he filed a false complaint and the same is not maintainable. He has failed to give details of the amount; the refund of which is being sought by him. The service was availed of for commercial purposes and the same does not come within the purview of the Act. The complainant has no locus standi nor any cause of action to file the complaint and the same is not maintainable.
3.           Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
4.           We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
5.           It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that it was wrongly held by the District Forum that the complainant failed to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that mere allegations made in the complaint, is not enough to prove the case.  While recording that finding, it failed to consider the evidence produced on record by the complainant in support of the allegations made in the complaint. It is a case, where that evidence has been totally overlooked by the District Forum and that is a ground for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the complaint to the District Forum, for deciding the same afresh after taking into consideration that evidence.
6.           On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complaint has been filed by Kuldeep Singh in his personal capacity. No such account, as mentioned in the complaint, was opened in opposite party No.1 bank in his name and the same was in the name of M/s Hamara Pump, as is clear from the statement of account Ex.C-2 and the other documents proved on the record.  Therefore, Kuldeep Singh could not have maintained the complaint in his name, as he is not the consumer and that it is a ground for dismissal of the complaint.  He further submitted that even if it is assumed that Kuldeep Singh, being the sole proprietor of M/s Hamara Pump, was competent to file the complaint, even then the same is not maintainable, as the facility of current account was obtained by him in respect of commercial transaction i.e. running of the petrol pump, therefore, he does not fall under the definition of “consumer”. Thus, there is no ground for allowing the appeal.
7.           We do agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant that the District Forum could not have dismissed the complaint on the basis of the observations made in the order and that it totally overlooked the evidence produced on the record. However, before proceeding with the complaint, it was the bounden duty of the District Forum to ascertain, whether the complainant was consumer within the meaning of the definition, as contained in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. The opposite parties proved on record the application form Ex.OP-5; which was submitted for opening the account in dispute.  That account was opened in the name of Hamara Pump, through Kuldeep Singh, as its proprietor. Therefore, the complaint was required to be filed in the name of Hamara Pump and Kuldeep Singh does not become a customer in his personal capacity. It is very much clear from the contents of the complaint and the fact that the same was filed by him in his own name, that he tried to conceal the factum that the service of the current account was availed of by him for commercial purposes. It was not disputed at the time of arguments that this Hamara Pump is a petrol pump and a petrol pump is always a commercial activity. It is not the case of the complainant that petrol pump is being run by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The service, by way of current account facility, was availed of for commercial purposes and, as such, the complainant does not fall under the definition of “consumer”.  The complaint was not maintainable before the Fora under the Act.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
8.           The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

 

 

                                                          (JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)

                                                                         PRESIDENT                                                         

 

 

                                                            (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER                                                         

 

 

                                                        (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR)

January 28, 2015                                         MEMBER

(Gurmeet S)