Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 16.10.2009 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (for short, the ‘State Commission’) dismissing its appeal, the petitioner Bank has filed the present revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the same. 2. The sole respondent in this petition is the proprietor of M/s A.M. Itagi & Sons, an IOCL dealer in the petroleum products. He was having a current account with the petitioner Bank in the name of the firm and was operating the said account as proprietor thereof. The respondent was utilizing the ‘Real Time Gross Settlement’ facility (RTGS) for remitting amounts to IOCL through this bank account. According to the complainant/respondent, the service charges for this service being rendered by the Bank as per the Reserve Bank Circular No.RBI/2008-09/207 DPSS Co. No.611/ 03.01.03 (P)/2008-09 dated 08.10.2008 were as under: (i) RTGS - Rs.1 to 5 lakh – not exceeding Rs.25/- per transaction (ii) Rs. 5 lakh and above – not exceeding Rs.50/- per transaction 3. During the period from 7.8.2008 to 11.11.2008, the complainant/respondent availed 33 outward RTGS transfers out of which, four RTGS transfers were of the amount not exceeding Rs.5 lakh and the rest were for more than Rs.5 lakh. In view of this, according to the respondent, the petitioner Bank should have charged him only Rs.1,550/- as per the RBI instructions (Rs.25 X 4 + Rs.50 X 29). Against this, the petitioner Bank levied services charges for in excess of the prescribed charges and illegally collected an amount of Rs.14,386/- over and above the legitimate charges payable under the RBI guidelines. Having come to know about the RBI guidelines, the complainant/respondent filed a consumer complaint against the concerned branch of the OP Bank (OP No.1) and the Assistant General Manager in the Bank’s regional office (OP No.2). The OP Bank resisted the complainant. Based on the pleadings of the parties and the material before it, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapur (for short, ‘the District Forum’) partly allowed the complaint by passing the following order:- “2). The OPs are hereby ordered to pay Rs.14386/- (Rupees fourteen thousand three hundred eighty six) towards excess R.T.G.S. Charges collected from the complainant within 2 months of passing of this Order, failing which complainant is entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint, till its entire realization. 3) The OPs are also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) towards the cost of this litigation to the complainant. 4) The OPs are also ordered to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) towards “Consumer Welfare Fund” within 2 months of passing of this order. 5) The OPs are hereby ordered not to collect illegal RTGS Charges in violation of directions of RBI and also not to collect Service Charges other than norms and directions issued by RBI.” 4. The OP Bank filed an appeal against this order of the District Forum before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its impugned order dismissed the appeal of the OP Bank and upheld the order of the District Forum and hence this Petition. 5. The petitioner Bank would assail the impugned order of the State Commission mainly on the ground that even though the RBI circular (supra) prescribed the revised rates for the RTGS transactions, the circular in question has not stipulated the date from which such revised rates would come into force and hence different branches of the Bank including the concerned branch in which the respondent was having its account would give effect to these revised rates from the date on which the contents of the circular are brought to the notice of the concerned branch of the petitioner Bank. It is submitted that since the RBI circular in question was not sent to the BD Road, Bijapur branch of the Petitioner Bank, it could not implement the contents thereof till the time that it received the circular through the Head Office. It is also the contention of the petitioner Bank that prior to 8.10.2008, the banks themselves were permitted to stipulate and levy service charges in respect of their RTGS transactions. In view of the these two factors, the Bijapur branch levied the RTGS service charges in question as per the rates in force in that branch and there was nothing illegal about them. Incidentally the RBI circular dated 08.10.2008 came to be circulated by the Head Office vide its circular dated 5.11.2008 which had not reached the branch in question on or before 11.11.2008. In the circumstances, the complainant/respondent is not entitled for any relief. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Bank and the respondent/complainant. Since the entire complaint of the respondent is based on the RBI circular, we have perused the contents thereof during the course of hearing. The RBI circular in question specifically lays down that the revised rates of RTGS charges mentioned in the circular shall come into force ‘with immediate effect’. We reproduce below the relevant operative portion of the RBI circular as under:- “RBI/2008-09/207 DPSS.CO.No.611/03.01.03(P)/2008-09 October 8, 2008 The Chairman and Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer All Scheduled Commercial Banks including RRBs/ Urban Co-operative Banks/State Co-operative Banks/ District Central Co-operative Banks Madam/Dear Sir, Levy of Service Charges for Electronic Payment Products and Outstation Cheque Collection With immediate effect, the framework of charges to be levied by banks for offering various electronic products and for outstation cheque collection service shall be as under:- 1. Electronic products a) Inward RTGS/NEFT/ECS transactions – free, no charge to be levied b) Outward transactions – (i) RTGS - Rs.1 to 5 lakh – not exceeding Rs.25/- per transaction Rs. 5 lakh and above – not exceeding Rs.50/- per transaction (ii) NEFT – Up to Rs.1 lakh - not exceeding Rs.5/- per transaction Rs.1 lakh and above - not exceeding Rs.25/- per transaction c) Banks may prescribe charges not higher than cheque returned charges for ECS debit returns. d) These charges shall be applicable for all types of transactions, including inter-bank funds transfers.” 7. In view of the above undisputed factual position of the RBI instructions which are binding on all the banks including the petitioner Bank, we cannot accept the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the revised rates were to be brought into effect by the OP branch of the Bank after the receipt of the Head Office circular dated 05.11.2008. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the statement filed by the respondent/complainant along with its consumer complaint before the District Forum. This statement, which is on record, contains details of 33 RTGS transactions starting from 07.08.2008 till 11.11.2008. The statement also contains calculation of RTGS charges levied by the Petitioner Bank which reflects the amount of Rs.14,386/- which according to the complainant has been charged illegally by the OP branch of the Bank from the complainant. The date of each transaction is given in the statement and we find that out of 33 transactions, transactions at Sl. Nos.1 to 22 pertained to the period prior to the issuance of the RBI circular of 08.01.2008. While accepting the proposition that the petitioner Bank cannot be allowed to levy RTGS charges over and above the rates laid down by the RBI, it has to be noted that no fault could be found with the charges levied by the petitioner Bank in respect of the first 22 transactions which pertain to the period prior to the issuance of RBI circular when the petitioner Bank/branch was free to prescribe its own service charges in respect of RTGS services. In view of this unassailable situation, the charges levied by the Bank for the first 22 transactions will have to be separated from the other 11 transactions while deciding the question regarding the legality of the charges levied by the petitioner Bank. After deducting the amount of RTGS charges collected by the petitioner Bank for these 22 transactions, the excess amount for the remaining 11 transactions as per the details given by the respondent/complainant comes to only Rs.2852/-. The remaining amount out of the alleged charges for Rs.14,386/- cannot be termed as illegal in view of the prevailing rule position before issuance of the RBI circular. This being the factual position, we are convinced that the Fora below erred in treating the charges levied in respect of all the 33 transactions as illegal in terms of the RBI circular. They should have given the benefit of the RBI circular to the respondent/complainant only w.e.f. the date of its issue, i.e., 08.10.2008 and not for the entire period starting from 07.08.2008 till 11.11.2008 to which the transactions in question pertained. To this extent, the contentions made in the revision petition are acceptable. Consequently, we partly allow the revision petition and modify the order of the Fora below by directing that the petitioner Bank shall pay only Rs.2852/- towards excess RTGS charges collected from the complainant instead of Rs.14,386/-. The other contents of the order of the Fora below shall remain unchanged. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.