This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 11.11.2020 passed by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur in CC No 69 of 2019. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the respondent Ranbir Banik registered a Consumer Complaint before Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur to the effect that he opened a current account on 19.09.2018 for his business purpose at Union Bank of Balurghat Branch. As per condition, the minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- to be kept in account and the Complainant was availed the right to do the RTGS and NEFT of Rs. 5,00.000/- without the charge. The Complainant used the said account for money transaction till February 2019 without any charge but in the month of March and April on 2019 the Complainant came to know on 24^th April 2019 that Rs. 4,479.89/- for the month of April and Rs. 5,649.07/- for the month of March was debited in his account for over transaction charges. The Complainant immediately contacted with the Bank Authority then he was told that the transaction month starts from 16^th of the existing month to 15^th of next month. But this condition was never stipulated while the current account was opened. Thereafter, the Complainant sent a complaint through speed post on 27.04.2019 to the O.P Bank against the said unlawful charges debited from his account. The Bank replied the same excuses and for that reason he registered the Consumer Complaint. The Consumer Complaint was admitted and notice was sent to Branch Manager of Union Bank, Balurghat Branch who has contested the case by filing W.V and contended that the said account of the Complainant known as Union Classic Current Account (UCCA) and the common features of the said account are that the provision of minimum average balance Rs. 50,000/- and the average monthly balance to be calculated from 16^th of the existing month till 15^th of the next month. The cash withdrawal NEFT RTGS and interest limit per day was unlimited free cash deposit was scheduled up to Rs. 50 Lakh. That on 18.03.2019 the respondents cash handle was more than Rs. 50 Lakh in a month and cash handling charges imposed on excess amount. This has shown in the Bank statement. That after charging cash handing charges the minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- of the account came down and a penalty for non-maintenance of minimum amount Rs. 2,000/- was debited. The further case of the O.P Bank is that the charges which was debited from the account of the Complainant was within the ambit the provisions of the UCCA and as such the instant Consumer Complaint was liable to be dismissed. Ld. Forum after recording the evidences has decided the case on its merit and came into conclusion that the Complainant as a bonafide consumer was suffered for the illegal and whimsical act of the O.P Bank which tantamount to deficiency of service and for that reason the O.P Bank was directed to pay Sum of Rs. 11,637.69/- with an interest of 8% Per-annum from 18.03.2019 and Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service.

Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum has suffered from gross irregularities and not vested in law. And the impugned Judgement and order is liable to b e set aside. The appeal was registered beyond the statutory period of limitation. And on the basis of convincing prayer over the condonation of delay, the appeal case was admitted and notice was sent to the Respondent/Complainant Ranbir Banik who in spite of receiving the notice did not come to contest the appeal. So, the appeal was heard Ex-parte. Ld. Advocate Mr. P. Joarder has conducted the hearing on behalf of the appellant.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate at the time of argument mentioned that the instant Consumer Case could not stand on its land as because the Complainant being a trader has opened the current account for commercial activities for the purpose of his business and as such, he was not a consumer as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He, further argued that the said current account was opened for business transaction of the Complainant/Respondent in the name of M/S Banik Traders and as per condition they are bound to keep a minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/-. He further argued that on 18.03.2019 the transactions were held through his account was more than Rs. 50,000,00/- only in a month and cash handling charges on excess amount has clearly shown in the statement of account. After, charging the cash and handling charges the minimum balance to be kept in the said account to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and as the balance came down below of minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- a penalty was imposed to the tune of Rs. 2,000/-. And said amount was debited from the account of the Complainant through computerized system. He, further mentioned that all the documents were produced before the Ld. Forum before final hearing of the case but the Ld. Forum without going into the details of the Bank documents has passed the impugned order which has become materially defective and could not be sustained. He further mentioned that the bank has acted according to the system introduced in the Bank and the Complainant was well aware about the conditions and rules to operate the current account and the Complainant was well aware of all its terms UCCA. The condition stipulated in the UCCA system that minimum balance average monthly balance minimum Rs. 50,000/- to be kept and shall to be calculated from 16^th of the existing month till 15^th of the next month. And during this period due to fault on the part of the Complainant the penalty including NEFT RTGS charges over excess transaction was debited from the said account as per system of the Bank and Bank officials has nothing to do in this score as the UCCA is an automatic system as per Banking regulations. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant in support of his argument referred some judicial decisions as follows-

1. Horsal Motors Vs. National Insurance dated 03.12.2004.
2. 1(2005) CPJ 33 (NC) in MM Hospital Vs. Samuraj.
3. 1(2005) CPJ 35 (NC) Union of India Vs. V. Sanghi.
4. ii(2011) CPJ 272 (NC) United India Insurance Vs. S. Kumar.

After going through the judicial decisions referred above by which the appellant argued that the respondent/complainant had operated the said current account for commercial activities in connection with his business and trade and as such he is not a consumer under the provisions of C.P Act, 1986. The Complainant in his Consumer Complaint clearly mentioned that in order to maintain his livelihood he was doing a business which was self-employment for the purpose of running the family needs and operation of the said current account should not be confined to commercial activities. After going through the pleading of the Complainant very carefully it is found that he used the said Bank account for making some transactions for the purpose of his business which does not mean that he was earning profits through the said account. And as such the said bank transactions should not be treated as commercial activities. After, going through the record very carefully it is revealed that the said UCCA account of the Complainant/Respondent had a condition to keep minimum balance of Rs. 50,000/- and such monthly average balance to be calculated for the period 16^th of the previous month up to 15^th of the current month and Complainant pleaded that he was not aware about the said condition. This excuse on the part of the Complainant is not bonafide one as because while he entered into an agreement with the Bank for opening the UCCA account, he was certainly aware about the said terms and conditions. Ongoing through the statement of account submitted from the both ends of the case it is reflected that during the period 16.02.2019 and 15.03.2019 the Complainant has transacted through the said account beyond the statutory limit and exceeded up to 1,52,000/- and for that reason the Bank has debited Rs. 169.76/- and penalty was imposed for such said overrated transaction and such amount was debited from his account. Due to shortfall of minimum balance fund in the said account.

From 16.03.2019 to 15.04.2019 the monthly transaction was held through this said account was Rs. 37,60,000/- whereas the upper limit was fixed at Rs. 50,000,00/-. And the charges deducted from the said account is apparently reflected irregular and illegal on the part of the banking system. The further transactions also from 16.04.2019 to 15.05.2019 and 16.05.2019 to 15.06.2019 the transactions were held within the permissible limit and average minimum balance for the said period was protected and maintained by the Complainant in his account. But in spite of that the Bank has deducted Rs. 3,113.40/- and Rs. 6,524/- and penalty Rs. 2,000/- and such deduction on the part of the Bank is apparently illegal according to the terms and conditions of the DCCA account which was not permissible enough and Ld. Forum after going through the entire documents very carefully has rightly observed that the Bank has illegally and whimsically deducted Rs. 11,637.69/- from the said account and for that reason Ld. Forum found it necessary to protect the interest of a bonafide consumer. The Bank was directed to pay Rs. 11,637.69/- along with interest at the rate of 8% Per-annum from 18.03.2019 till the full realization within the 45 days. And compensation Rs. 5,000/- was found very reasonable, appreciable and according to the terms and conditions on the banking system which was utterly violated on the part of the Bank. So, the order of Ld. forum does not show any illegality or defect in apparent and invites no interreference upon the merit of the said order. Thus, the appeal devoids of any merit.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is dismissed on merit without any cost.

Let the order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Dakshin Dinajpur through Email.