Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC 35/2010

M/s H.P.Shekhar Filling Station - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Umesh Chauhan

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No. 35 of 2010.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 15.1.2010.

                                                                                             Date of decision:30.9.2015.

M/s H.P. Shekhar Filling Station Sadhaura, through its Prop. Mr. Shekhar son of Sh. Mohinder Kumar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          …Opposite party.

 

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

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

 

Present:  Sh. Umesh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. M.L.Bansal, Advocate, counsel for OP.          

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant firm has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondent( hereinafter referred as OP) be directed to refund a sum of Rs. 6440.42 alongwith interest at the rate of 18% and also to pay Rs. 5000/- as cost of undue mental agony and Rs. 5000/- as cost of litigation.

2.                     Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant firm, are that the complainant firm is working in the name and style of M/s H.P. Shekhar Filling Station at Sadhaura and Mr. Shekhar son of Mohinder Kumar is its sole proprietor and the complainant firm had a current account No. 024705002152 in the OP Bank.  The complainant firm was maintaining its account well in the OP bank and upto 30.4.2009 the OP bank has been levying Rs. 200/- plus service tax to the account of the complainant as incidental charges. It has been further mentioned that the OP bank had illegally and unjustifiably debited following amount to his account during the period 1.5.2009 to 16.5.2009 (Annexure C-1) :-

i.          TRRF to IBRRESPOND Rs. 1000/- on 1.5.2009,

ii           Transaction charges Rs. 6440.42 on 12.5.2009.

                        It has been further mentioned that before such debits, the OP bank has never charged any charges against the complainant’s account and prior to debiting the aforesaid amount no notice was given. The complainant firm requested the OP for reversing the aforesaid charges but they did not pay any heed to his genuine request. The complainant firm also got served a registered AD Legal notice to the OP bank through its counsel but after receiving the above referred notice, the OP bank refunded only Rs. 1000/- on 15.6.2009 and balance amount of Rs. 6440.42 is yet to be refunded by them. The refund of Rs. 1000/- by the OP bank goes to prove that earlier they had wrongly debited the amount and they are legally bound to refund a sum of Rs. 6440.42 to the complainant alongwith interest and prayed for directing the OP to refund a sum of Rs. 6440.42 to the complainant alongwith interest as well as compensation and litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OP appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act, no locus standi to file the present complaint, complaint is false and frivolous, stopped by his own act and conduct, has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been mentioned that there are huge transactions in the said account of complainant, which are beyond the limit as framed by the bank’s rules and regulations. It has been further mentioned that the OP bank has telephonically told to the complainant about the said charges and all the charges regarding maintaining the account are visible on the Bank’s website i.e. w.w.w. icicibank, com and are duly displayed on the notice board of the OP Bank. It is further mentioned that the charges of Rs. 1000/- deducted from the complainant’s account have already been reversed vide demand draft No. 107516 dated 12.6.2009. The deduction of Rs. 6440.42 is legal and as per the banking rules and regulations.  As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Shankar proprietor of M/s H.P. Shekhar Filling Station as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of Statement of account as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of Registered AD legal notice as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of reply of legal notice as Annexure C-3, Acknowledgements as Annexure C-4 & C-5, Carbon copy of letter dated 1.6.2009 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of status report of account No. 024705002152 as Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Vikas Manager, Authorized person, ICICI Bank as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Photo copy of Transaction inquiry as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of roaming current account service directory as Annexure R-2, Photo copy of classic plus schedule of charges as Annexure R-3, Photo copy of revision in certain service charges as Annexure R-4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

6.                     We have heard the counsels for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OP reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7                      It is not disputed that the complainant firm had opened a current account bearing No. 024705002152 with the OP bank for day to day working and on the perusal of the statement of account it was observed that a sum of Rs. 6440.42 has been debited from the account of complainant as transaction charges which are unwanted charges. Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the OP bank has illegally, against the norms, Rules and Regulations and Guidelines of the RBi charged this amount i.e. Rs. 6440.42 from the account of complainant and the same is liable to be refunded.

8.                     On the other hand, leaned counsel for the Op bank has hotly argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank as this amount of Rs. 6440.42 has been legally charged from the complainant’s account on account of transaction charges. The complainant was having a current account for running his petrol pump business with the OP Bank for day to day working. To prove this fact, the OP bank has filed account statement as Annexure R-1 and copy of list of charging for roaming current account w.e.f. 1.8.2008 and classic plus schedule charges Annexure R-3 in which it has been specifically mentioned that OP Bank will charge for collection as mentioned in Annexure R-2 on account of denomination wise charges for cash deposit and for cash collection. Learned counsel for the OP bank further referred Annexure R-4 Revised Guidelines for charging on account of service charges. Learned counsel for the OP bank has further stated that the OP bank is working under the Guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India and complainant has filed this false complaint. The complainant firm was running a business of petrol pump and doing huge commercial activities from his account and well aware about charging of maintaining the account and also aware about the functioning of bank policies and never personally approached to the bank to protest the same. Learned counsel for the OP further argued that the complainant firm is doing business and was having a current account. Hence, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and referred the case law in this regard titled as Maya Engineering Works vs. ICICI Bank Ltd. decided on 5.11.2014 delivered by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been held that any services hired or availed for commercial purpose after amendment on 15.3.2003 does not fall within the purpose of “Consumer” in the light of order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 10650 of 2010, Birla Technologies ltd. Vs. neutral Glass and Allied Industries Ltd. Learned counsel for the Op further relied upon the case laws titled as PDC Marketing Pvt. Ltd. vs. Axis Bank Ltd. III (2013) CPJ page 672 (NC), Suishma Goel vs. Punjab National bank, 2011 (3) CLT page 576 (NC) wherein it has been held that complainant is commercial organization and bank account maintained by complainant is for commercial purpose. The complaint will fall the exception clause contained in section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act. Learned counsel for the OP further relied upon the various case laws on the aforesaid point and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

9.                     After going through the above noted facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant is not tenable. The complainant firm failed to show any guidelines issued by RBI or agreement between the OP bank and complainant that the OP bank will not charge any amount on account of transactions i.e. service provided to the complainant. On the other hand, OP Bank has duly proved that they have charged the amount in question from the account of complainant as per guidelines and instructions (Annexure R-2 to R-4) issued by the Bank from time to time and there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.

10.                   Resultantly we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 30.9.2015.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                    MEMBER