Delhi

East Delhi

CC/140/2013

G.D. SINGHLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 140/2013

 

G.D. Singla & Associates

Chartered Accountants through its Prop.

Shri G.D. Singla

147/10, Supreme Encalve, Mayur Vihar-I

Delhi 110092

 

 

 

    ….Complainant

Versus

 

1

The Branch Manager

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

A-23, Ground & Basement Floor

Yojna Vihar, Delhi 110092

 

 

……OP1

2

The Branch Manager

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

Plot No. 4, Mayur Vihar-IV

DDA Local Shopping Centre Scheme,

Delhi 110092

 

 

 

……OP2

3

Mr. Uday Kotak

Executive VC & MD

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.

36/38-A, Nariman Bhawan

227, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021

 

 

….OP3

 

Date of Institution: 21.02.2013

Judgment Reserved on: 27.05.2022

Judgment Passed on: 07.06.2022

                  

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member) – on leave

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra, President

JUDGEMENT

  1. By this order I shall dispose off the present complaint filed by the complainant against OP, inter-alia alleging deficiency in service w.r.t.  maintaining of his current account no. 02112000000897.
  2. It is inter-alia stated by the complainant that he is a chartered accountant and under certain scheme OP approached him for opening a current account under the scheme ‘value profession- pro edge classic current account’ under promo code BPPMNC thereby assuring certain special privileges including  zero balance maintenance, operation at all branches at par all over India and certain other benefits subject to certain restrictions and the complainant accordingly, completed the formalities and opened the current account in the name of M/s. G.D Singhla & Associates on 7.8.2010 with the initial deposit of Rs.50000/-. However, the representative of OP subsequently informed him that to avail the zero balance benefits another saving account has to be opened. The complainant was not initially interested but since his current account was not made operational he opened an additional ‘Kotak Edge Saving Account’ in the joint name of him self & his wife on 31.8.2010. The account was assured to be opened at Mayur Vihar but it was opened at Yojna Vihar Branch i.e. far away from his residence and when he tried to make certain transactions at Mysore Branch of OP he faced various difficulties and every time when cheque was presented/drawn for Rs. 50,000/-, the OP branch used to ask confirmation from home branch. However, the Mysore Branch of OP’s bank did not follow this procedure when a third party withdrew an amount of Rs.6,19,000/- by way of four cheques out of which one was stolen cheque of complainant for which the complaint was lodged at Mysore Branch. Further his amount was being unauthorizedly and illegally debited, and not only this, when this account was being unauthorizedly dealt with and certain amount was being debited from his account, his various other cheques of routine activities like MTNL bill, or the cheuqes which he had issued to other persons used to get dishonored which caused loss to his reputation. Not only this, OP had shown overdraft facilities in his current account which he never applied for and in these circumstances he met various persons/officials of the OP but his complaint was not redressed. He then filed a complaint on 17.7.2011 by email to the Branch Manager and then OP started pressurizing to withdraw the complaint and settle the matter by reversal of certain charges to the extent of Rs.19500/- but since the complaint was not withdrawn, OP started harassing him and once even his account was made un-operational on the ground of his KYC is not complete and it is reiterated that this account was only for the person who has chartered accountant degree and account was also opened for that category and then asking copy of degree of CA was uncalled for and this is the way, the bank had created obstacles in the operation of his account by invoking one provision or other and he could not enjoy the account in the way he was promised. It is further stated that various facts represented by representative of OP were found to be false. His account was unauthoizedly debited with various charges by not following the procedure for which he was compelled to file complainant and also file present complaint with the prayer to refund illegally debited charges, amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and misrepresentation, amount of Rs.50,000/- for violation of their own code, Rs.10,000/- for cost of trial and for imposting exemplary cost.
  3. The OP has filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that complaint is false, frivolous and baseless. The complaint has been filed for intimidating the OPs with intention to gain undue advantage and benefits. The complaint has been filed for malafide intentions. It is further stated by the OPs that account was current account in the name of Business entity i.e. M/s G.D. Singhla and Associates which runs the business of providing services in the area of project finance, audit, taxation and other commercial activities and as such it is stated that complainant does not fall within the definition of “Consumer”. The account was opened in routine course as per the datas/particulars provided by the complainant  and only valid charges have been levied in terms of rules & regulations of the bank, therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted that the complainant cannot seek the benefit of the social legislation for commercial purpose. Complainant has concealed the material facts from the preview of the Forum. OP3 was not a necessary party at all and no unfair trade practice has been adopted by OPs. Therefore, complaint is not maintainable.
  4. On merit, opening of account in the requisite category is not denied and it is submitted that certain benefits like NEFT/RTGS were always available to the complainant including over draft, active money facility and bank never compelled the complainant to open another saving account as alleged.  The family saving account in the joint name of his wife Smt. Pravin Singhla and the complainant himself was opened and the OP has acted as per the request and instructions of the complainant and there was no compulsion from the OP side to open that account. It is further stated that if it could have been the case, as alleged, then both the accounts would have opened on same date. The allegations are false and it is denied that account was to be opened at Mayur Vihar Branch or has been opened at Yojna Vihar branch, rather there was no such complaint regarding such misrepresentation against the staff of the OP, either at Yojna Vihar or subsequently at Mayur Vihar which branch was subsequently changed on the request of complainant. As far as withdrawal of 4 cheques for an amount of Rs.619000/- are concerned, it is stated that these cheques were drawn by the complainant himself and were cleared by the OP bank having done its due diligence and since there was no material alterations/discrepancies in those cheques, the bank was under duty to honour such ‘self’ cheques. As far as one cheuqe was stolen as stated, the complainant had not given any information to the bank in this regard. Levying of other charges are stated to have been as per rules. The allegation of not being cooperative to the complainant, not following the code of conduct by the bank and all such allegations are denied and it is reiterated that there was no deficiency in service by the OPs and complainant of the complainant be dismissed.
  5. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement filed by OP thereby reiterating the facts of the complaint.  Both the parties have filed their respective evidence.  The complainant has filed evidence by way of affidavit and OP has filed evidence of Sh. Jyoti Ram Choudhary Sr. Manager Legal.
  6. I have heard the argument of complainant and perused the record. The complainant is appearing in person and has argued that the OP has committed various acts of deficiency of service right from the date of opening the current account, place of opening, encashment of the cheques by the complainant at par particularly when he visited Mysore, freezing his account illegally, granting overdraft facility in his account without request, and then by flouting various guidelines of the bank itself and not only this encashment of his one lost cheque of Rs.200000/- out of four cheques of Rs.619000/- and the stolen cheques were encashed without sending any SMS to the complainant which practice the OP bank was otherwise following as and when he himself used to present his own cheque and since this amount of Rs.2 lakh was an hefty amount no information was sent and, therefore, there is deficiency in providing the service to the complainant by the OP.
  7. However, at this stage i.e, when the matter was fixed for final arguments, the complainant informed the court that earlier the matter was once kept for settlement but since his case at Mysore w.r.t unlawful withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- by someone was pending, he did not settle the matter and now he is ready to settle the matter as the complaint regarding the lost cheque at Mysore Branch has been resolved and now only the present complaint w.r.t deficiency in service is pending and he is claiming that OP be directed to refund the illegally debited amount of Rs.17,784/- in account of the complainant by reversal of such entries and pay such other compensation. 
  8. The OP on the other hand has argued that the present account of the complainant was a current account and as such in view of the judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Travel India Bureau Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HUDA & Ors. II (2008) CPJ 329 (NC) wherein it was inter alia held that only services availed for the purpose of earning livelihood by means of self-employment are not to be treated for commercial purpose, The Hon’ble National Commission in another judgement Jagmohan Chhabra & Anr. Vs. DLF Universal Limited IV (2007) CPJ 199 (NC) has held that ground, first and second floor in town houses were purchased for earning profits and the transaction is thus relatable to commercial purpose and complainant not being consumer the complaint is not maintainable and The Hon’ble National Commission in Smt. Shikha Birla Vs. DLF Retail Developers Ltd. Consumer Complaint no. 183 of 2012 decided on 01.02.2013 has followed the aforesaid decisions.  Therefore, the present complaint in the District Consumer Commission is not maintainable w.r.t commercial transaction.
  9. As far as deficiency in service w.r.t debiting the account is concerned, although the Counsel for OP had not been appearing for last few days, yet the written arguments of OP are placed on record wherein it is stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
  10. The basic contention, therefore, would remain that if the complaint is maintainable then the concept of deficiency in providing the services as mentioned under Consumer Protection Act would be considered, if the complaint on account of the ‘Current Account’ is not maintainable before this Forum/Commission no other deficiency can be adjudicated.  First issue, therefore, is as to whether the complaint of the complainant is maintainable when he was admittedly having a current account i.e. M/s. G.D Singla and Associates who has several associates and employees in the firm and that firm runs a business of providing services in the area of project finance, audit, taxation, etc.
  11. IN reply to the judgments relied upon by the OP, the complainant in its initial arguments has mentioned that the point of order that it is a ‘current account’ had already been settled in favour of the complainant by the Ld. Predecessor when the Ld. Predecessor has raised this query on 05.12.2017.  I have perused the order sheet dated 5.12.2017 but it does not reflect that the controversy regarding the maintainability of the complaint w.r.t ‘current account’ has been resolved. There is no specific order on the Court file. Therefore, this contention of the complainant is not well found.
  12. In Judgment Sushma Goel Vs. P.N.B decided by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission on 7.4.2011 (R.P. No. 134 of 2011) which was a case related to current account. In para 2 of the judgment it was observed that ‘…….the case of the complainant was that she had opened a current account with the RP/Punjab National Bank, in the name of Bonanza Portfolio Ltd……

Ultimately in para 7 & 8 it is observed that :

Para 7

From this and the evidence produced on behalf of the complainant before the fora below, it is undantlya clear that the entire matter in the complaint filed by Smt. Sushma Goel relates to operation a bank account maintained by a commercial organization for a commercial purpose.  The revision petition itself claims in para 3.1 that revisionist is engaged in business of the share trading and is an authorized agent of M/s. Bonanza Portfolio Ltd (herein referred to as company) a company incorporated under companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 4353/4C, Ansari Road, Daryaganj, New Delhi.

 

Para 8

By the admission, the complaint will fall within the exception clause contained in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) the Consumer Protection Act, as amended in 2002.  In terms of the provision, the RP/Complainant does not qualify to be a consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Therefore, in the view, the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission Uttrakhand has rightly rejected the consumer complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner.

 

  1. Keeping in view the law on the aspect of ‘current a/c’ this Commission is of the opinion that the present complaint of the complainant is not maintainable. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
  2. Since, the complaint w.r.t. current account is not maintainable, the Commission is not competent to dwell into other discrepancies and therefore no findings can be given on such discrepancies. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed.  
  3. Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.
  4. File be consigned to Record Room.
  5. Announced on 7.6.2022

DELHI

 

(On leave)

(Ritu Garodia)

Member

(Ravi Kumar)

Member

(S.S. Malhotra)

President

 

                                                             

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.