The present complaint is filed by one Sri Praveen Murarka, one of the Directors of Snowrise Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. against the Manager, and the Area Operation & Services Head of Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. (formerly known as ING Vysya Bank Ltd.), praying for a direction upon the OPs to refund Rs. 10,000/- that has been deducted from the account of the company with interest @ 12% p.a., cost amounting to Rs. 1,00,000/- towards business loss, another sun of Rs. 20,000/- for facing harassment and cost of litigation.
In short, case of the Complainant, is that, it was maintaining a current account no. 691011002282 in the name of Snowrise Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. In the year 2003, some agents of the OPs approached the Complainant for opening a bank account with them. Accordingly, the Complainant handed over relevant papers, including copy of Board Resolution, to the said persons. Being satisfied with the documents, said agents of the OPs asked the Complainant to sign some documents. Besides signing the documents, the Complainant also handed over a cheque of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the said agent. Later on, for some urgent needs, the Complainant requested the OPs to send copies of the documents, but to no avail. The Complainant also, vide its letter dated 12-03-2013, asked the OPs to send Statement of Accounts through email. It is alleged that the OPs abruptly deducted a sum of Rs. 224.72 from the said current account on 28-02-2013 for “stop payment reversed”. So, the Complainant asked for Statement of Account vide letter dated 09-04-2013. Although the OP sent the Statement of Account through email, there was no explanation as regards the disputed deduction of Rs. 224.72 on 05-04-2013. So, the Complainant sent a letter through his Ld. Advocate on 10-12-2015. However, the OPs simply choose to ignore it. Not only that, the OPs have also closed the account of the Complainant without giving any notice to the latter. Hence, this case.
OPs contested the case by filing WV, whereby they denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It is further stated that the Complainant opened a current account with their Ballygunge branch on 18-01-2013. The account was opened by the Complainant by submitting account opening form with an initial deposit of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On 19-02-2013, a sum of Rs. 4,75,000/- was transferred to the savings account of the Complainant. All necessary documents and cheque book pertaining to the said account was delivered to the address provided by the Complainant. After the aforesaid transfer of amount from the current account to the savings account, the amount lying in the said current account was not sufficient to maintain the required average quarterly balance due to which service charges of Rs. 5,056.20 and Rs. 4,943.80 were levied in the said account on 30-06-2013 and 30-09-2013, respectively. Such deduction turned the account into a zero balance account. It is claimed by the OPs that they have legally deducted such service charge for non-maintenance of average quarterly balance as per the RBI guidelines. The OP bank has a regular process of weeding out zero balance accounts after the account is found to have zero balance on the last day of any financial year. Since the balance in the said current account was zero as on 31-03-2014, the account was, therefore, closed on 13-08-2014 after completion of all internal formalities by the OP bank. Even the Complainant had visited the branch in September, 2014 and he was provided with an updated statement and apprised of the reason for closure of the account. Accordingly, the OPs prayed for dismissal of this case.
Point for consideration
- Whether the complaint case is maintainable in its present form and prayer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, as alleged?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
Admittedly, Complainant is a Private Limited Company, and Sri Praveen Murarka happens to be one of the Directors of the Company. Undisputedly, the dispute revolves over certain deductions from the current account of the Complainant company.
Now, let us see, whether a Private Limited Company qualifies as a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or not.
Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act reads as follows: -
“(d) "Consumer" means any person who, -
(i) Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [Hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other then the person who 8[hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
[Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-clause "commercial purpose" does not include use by a consumer of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment;]”
In this case, the account stands in the name of the Company which is a Private Limited Company and not an individual. As we know, unlike Proprietorship firms, in case of Private Limited Companies, its Directors vis-à-vis the Company enjoys separate/distinguish identity and both cannot be treated as the same and identical person. Therefore, it is insignificant in this case, whether or not Sri Praveen Murarka, one of the Directors of the Company, runs the company in order to earn his livelihood. Since the Complainant Company is a Private Limited company and the account stands in the name of the company, which was ostensibly opened for commercial purpose, we cannot treat M/s Snowrise Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. as a bona fide consumer to seek redressal of its grievance under the 1986 Act. Accordingly, the present complaint is not maintainable in its present form and prayer. This point is, thus, decided against the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of brevity of discussion. More so, they are inter-connected.
The first relief sought for by the Complainant is to get refund of Rs. 10,000/- that has allegedly been deducted from the account of the company. Most surprisingly, nowhere in the petition of complaint it is clarified as to how and when such amount was deducted by the OPs. Although the Complainant has complained about deduction of a sum of Rs. 224.72 on account of “stop payment reversed”, there is no whisper anywhere in the petition of complaint how the alleged sum of Rs. 10,000/- was arbitrarily deducted by the OPs. In fact, the petition of complaint is drafted in such a casual manner that the aforesaid deduction of Rs. 224.72 has been described as a “credit” transaction although it was actually debited from the account of the Complainant.
Be that as it may, it is clarified by the OPs that they deducted Rs. 5,056.20 and Rs. 4,943.80 on 30-06-2013 and 30-09-2013, respectively, due to insufficient balance. Although the RBI has recently debarred banks from levying charges for non-maintenance of minimum balance in respect of savings accounts, however, such immunity has not been extended in respect of current accounts. As the amount lying in the said current account was not sufficient to maintain the required average quarterly balance, it is futile to point out any arbitrariness/deficiency in service in the action of the OPs, as alleged by the Complainant.
In the light of our aforesaid findings, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, both these points are decided against the OPs.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
that CC/16/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs. No order as to costs.
