Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member
Heard Mr.Ashutosh Marathe-Advocate for the appellant and respondent in person.
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 15/02/2011 passed in consumer complaint no.602/2007, Krishna Chandra Pandey v/s. Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer, IDBI Bank Ltd. and another; passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Bandra (‘forum’ in short). It is the grievance of the respondent /original complainant that he and his wife held a bank account with IDBI Bank Ltd. and, initially, for him and in his wife’s name ATM cards were issued. Bank issued ATM-cum-Debit Card sometime in the year 2002 and because of the change in the product, started charging the fees on annual basis to the extent of `99/- to `110/- during the period 18/12/2002 to 07/09/2009. Complainant took objection for charging of such fees on the ATM cum Debit Card issued, when he did not want Debit card but only ATM card. Charging of fees were reversed back on and often but alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank for adopting such course of charging fees and, thereafter, debiting the same, consumer complaint was filed claiming the compensation.
The Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed appellant/original opponents to pay compensation of `25,000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the original opponents.
Admittedly, ATM-cum-Debit card was issued by the bank in their routine business instead of only ATM card to respondent/original complainant and his wife as per their change in the policy, the new product ATM cum Debit card. However, being the account holder when the complainant did not want that facility, he actually informed the bank about it and on his complaint, charges levied from time to time got refunded back. Charges of `99/- levied on 18/12/2002 were refunded on 28/12/2002, charges of `99/- levied on 31/12/2003 were reverted back on 08/09/2004, charges of `110/- levied on 17/12/2004 were reverted back on 29/03/2005, charges of `110/- levied on 26/12/2005 were reverted back on 14/11/2007, charges of `110/- levied on 28/12/2006 were reverted back on 30/01/2008, charges of `110/- levied on 29/12/2007 were reverted back on 30/01/2008 & 10/02/2009, charges of `110/- levied on 30/12/2008 were reverted back on 07/09/2009.
Such statement on record which is at compilation at page 74, is not in dispute. Same is case in respect of the statement made in para 4(a) of the complaint by the respondent/complainant. He also claims that the ATM card was used by him only for cash withdrawals and not for any purchase (i.e. as a debit card). It is submitted further on behalf of respondent/complainant that the card issued to his wife which got expired in the year 2006 and a new card in 2007 was issued and the same was returned back as per letter dated 25/09/2007. Said letter is also on record in the compilation at page 62 of appeal paper book.
Basically, alleged deficiency in service for charging wrongly comes to an end when the amount is refunded back or recredit the same, but it is submitted and proposed rightly by the complainant that on and often the bank went on charging or levying such fees for issuing ATM cum Debit card and only on complaint that too not immediately, but after passage of time used to re-credit that amount in their account or the entry was reverted back to that extent and, therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the bank.
In the instant case, IDBI bank who actually issued ATM cum Debit card and extended the facility to the complainant and his wife, is not a party. IDBI bank itself being the separate and distinct juridic person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ought to have been made a party. Its ‘Managing Director’ or ‘Chief Executive officer’ and ‘Manager’ of a branch at Khar (West), certainly, are not one and the same like the bank itself. Each one of these officials is a separate and distinct juridic person. They are not ‘service providers’ in relation to which deficiency in service alleged, supra. When we brought this particular aspect to the notice of respondent/original complainant, he tried to submit that these officials during the trial before the forum did not contest the matter and at no point of time raised any objection that the bank is not a party. We are afraid whether they raised or not raised such objection is not the issue but such argument now advanced before us in appeal on behalf of the appellant and, basically, this particular issue goes to the root of the matter since the consumer dispute arose between ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’ and not with the person who are not ‘service providers’. Under the circumstances, we cannot support the impugned order. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal is allowed.
Impugned order is set aside.
In the result, consumer complaint stands dismissed.
Both the parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 12th October, 2011.
