C.D.No. 43 / 2013
Between:-
M/s. Kancherla Srirama Krishnaiah,
S/o. Veerayya, aged 74 years, Business,
R/o. D.No. 1-002-12, Mettakur,
Yanam …Complainant
And
M/s. ING Vysya Bank Limited,
Represented by its Branch Manager,
Main Branch, Temple Street,
Kakinada ... Opposite party
This case coming on 13.11.2014 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri M. Jawahar Ali, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P. Ravi Sankar, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over to this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-
O R D E R
(By Sri S. Bhaskararao, Member on behalf of the Bench)
This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the complainant against the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs. 1,12,953-73 ps and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant opened current account in the opposite party bank. The complainant continued his operations in the opposite party bank and for the purpose of submitting the returns, used to obtain the statement of the transactions done with his account. The complainant obtained the statement, it shows that an amount of Rs. 62,953-73 ps were deducted from the current account of the complainant by the opposite party authorities towards base case deposit charges up to May, 2011. The complainant made representations seeking refund the said amount. The bank authorities failed to respond to the complainant. The complainant submitted a report before Banking Ombudsman and they registered a case and on all subsequent dates. The opposite party failed to refund the said amount. Hence, this complaint.
3 The opposite party filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant and claims has been availing an Over Draft facility from the O.P. for commercial activity and as such it will not come under the definition of Sec. 2 [1][d][ii] of the Consumer Protection Act, as the Over Draft has been availed not for eaking out lively hood or by means of self employment.
4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, his affidavit has been filed and Exs. A1 to A7 have been got marked. The documents Exs.B1 & B2 are marked by the opposite party.
5. The points which arise for consideration are:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under C.P.Act?
- If so, whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party
- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the amount claimed by him in the complaint?
6. In this regard the complainant marked documents Exs.A1 to A7 which are described hereunder.
Ex.A1 is account copy of Kancherla Srirama Krishnaiah for the account bearing No. 330044036268 for the period from 01.06.2011 to 28.06.2011; Ex.A2 is office copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated 28.06.2011; Ex.A3 is office copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party dated 10.01.2012; Ex.A4 is Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant Vijayawada dated 28.01.2012; Ex.A5 is office copy of report submitted by the complainant to Banking Ombudsman; Ex.A6 is Letter from Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad informing the registration of complaint against opposite party bank dated 16.05.2012; Ex.A7 is letter issued by Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad along with written version of opposite party bank dated 30.07.2012.
7 In this regard the opposite party marked documents Exs.B1 & 2 which are described hereunder.
Ex. B1 is reply given by Customer care unit to the complainant dated 26.01.2013; Ex.B2 is the excel sheet shows the deposit of Rs. 1.24 crores against the Over Draft limit of Rs. 45,000/-.
8 There is no dispute that complainant availed Over Draft facility from the opposite party and is also doing business by availing over draft facility and also maintaining current account. These transactions would indicate that the amounts borrowed from the opposite party were only for business purpose. The complainant has not produced any material evidencing that the business for eaking out livelihood and hence covered under exception clause.
9 In this regard, the opposite party relied on a decision reported in
“Gangar Opticians Pvt.Ltd.,versus HDFC Bank Ltd., 2012 [3] C.P.R. 516 [N.C.]
Relying on the above said decision the opposite party counsel contended that as it is a commercial transaction the complainant doesn’t come within the purview of C.P. Act. The above said decision supports the contention of the learned counsel for opposite party.
He also relied on the following decisions for the self same proposition C.G. State Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Versus Fattechand Bagdi 2012 [2] C.P.R. 174 and Vijay Kumar versus Indusind Bank 2012 [3] C.P.R. 242 [N.C].
10 Thus in view of the above discussion it is to be held that the complainant is not a consumer within the purview of C.P. Act. Hence the point is answered against the complainant.
11 Points 2 & 3: In view of finding rendered under pointNo.1 these points are also answered against the complainant.
12 In the result, the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
Typed by the steno, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 02nd day of December, 2014
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant : None For opposite party : None
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Account copy of Kancherla Sriramakrishnaiah for the account bearing No. 330044036268 for the period from 01.06.2011 to 28.06.2011
Ex.A2 28.06.2011 Office copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A3 10.01.2012 Office copy of letter addressed by the complainant to the opposite party
Ex.A4 28.01.2012 Letter addressed by the opposite party to the complainant Vijayawada
Ex. Office copy of report submitted by the complainant to Banking Ombudsman
Ex.A6 16.05.2012 Letter from Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad informing the registration of complaint against opposite party bank.
Ex.A7 30.07.2012 Letter issued by Banking Ombudsman, Hyderabad along with written version of opposite party bank.
For opposite party:-
Ex. B1 26.01.2013 reply given by Customer care unit to the complainant
Ex.B2 The excel sheet shows the deposit of Rs. 1.24 Crores against the Over Draft limit of Rs. 45,000/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
