PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed compensation of Rs.3,18,750/- and further interest on the said amount @18% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization for deficiency of service, damages due to making false and misleading representations at the time of opening bank account and indulging in unfair trade practices by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant due to which he has suffered mental agony on account of reckless attitude adopted by the Opposite Parties. 

2)        According to the Complainant, he is Sole Proprietor of Firm M/s. Choonilal Mohanlal & Co. The Opposite Party is bank and renders necessary services by carrying on the business of banking to the customers. It is alleged that the Complainant is the customer of the Opposite Parties and having his Current Account bearing No.224-0-527095-6.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties had approached to the Complainant for opening the aforesaid account by maintaining the balance of Rs.50,000/-.  According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties promised and guaranteed the facilities – 1) Free daily pick up of cheques, 2) Sales Tax & Income Tax payment challan shall be accepted. 3) Outstation cheques would be cleared within 7 working days.  4) Outstation cheques would be cleared by charging Rs.50/- per cheque only.  5) Free cash pick up and withdrawal.  It is alleged that the Complainant wanted to avail the said facilities and thus, opened the aforesaid current account in the Chowpatty Branch of the Opposite Parties.  According to the Complainant, at the time of opening of account the Complainant was assured about the granting all the aforesaid facilities. It is the case of the Complainant that however, thereafter the Opposite Parties have not provided some of the facilities as promised and thus, misrepresented the Complainant and adopted unfair trade practice.  It is alleged that after opening the current account on 28/01/2001 he waited for the Opposite Parties to collect the cheques from his office, however, no one turned from the Opposite Parties for the daily pickup of cheques for five consecutive days after opening the account.  The Complainant therefore, inquired about the same with the Opposite Party on phone to which it was informed to the Complainant that none of the aforesaid facilities would be availed by him.  The said fact was also brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties by the Complainant through Tele Banking Complaint No.KRI-22 and also by   e-mail however, the Opposite Party did not reply to the same.  It is alleged that on contacting one Mr. Jagmohan of the Opposite Party it was told to the Complainant that he should maintain a minimum balance of Rs.1 Lac and then only the Opposite Parties would give him the facility of daily free pick-up of cheques and no other facility as promised at the time of opening of the bank facility would be made available.  The Complainant thereafter by his fax letter dtd.29/01/2001 written his grievances to the Opposite Parties at their London Office.  The copy of which is marked at Exh.‘A’.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties on receiving the aforesaid letter in turn by their letter dtd.30/03/2001 had asked the Complainant to address the Complainant at their regional office in Dubai.  The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘B’. 

3)        According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties thereafter by their e-mail letter dtd.02/04/2001 have tendered their apologies and assured to provide the services such as, - 1) Daily pick up of cheques. 2) Outstation cheques will be cleared within 7 days. 3) Outstation cheques clearing charges would be Rs.50/-.  4) Cash pick up and withdrawal facility.  The Opposite Parties also cleared that they would not accept Sales Tax and Income Tax Returns.  The copy of the said letter is marked at Exh.‘C’.  It is alleged that prior to open the bank account with the Opposite Parties the Complainant had a current bank account with Bank of Baroda at Gulalwadi Branch. It was near to his shop/office premises and the said bank was also accepting Income Tax & Sales Tax Challans, outstation cheques used to be cleared with 15 days and interest was also to be paid, if the clearance was delayed apart from providing him other numerous facilities and services for Pety sum.  The Complainant was also provided with L.C. facility by Bank of Baroda because of his import business. It is submitted that the Complainant stopped operating the bank of Baroda account by not keeping minimum amount because of opening the aforesaid current account with the Opposite Party.  It is alleged that the aforesaid facts were informed to the Opposite Parties by his letter dtd.04/04/2001 which was sent by fax at the London Office of Opposite Parties.  The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘D’.  According to the Complainant, on receiving the aforesaid letter of the Complainant the London office of the Opposite Parties forwarded the same to the Regional Head of the Opposite Parties at Dubai under intimation of the same to the Complainant vide their letter dtd.11/04/2001. The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘E’.    

4)        It is alleged that the Opposite Parties by their letter dtd.20/04/2001 asked the Complainant to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.1 Lac in his bank account and then only the facilities, such as  1) Daily pick up of cheques 2) Cash pick up and delivery 3)Outward clearing cheque and return 4) Stop payment of cheques 5) National Clearing charge at Rs.25/- per item. 6) Outstation cheques clearing within 7 days.  The copy of said letter is marked at Exh.‘I’.  It is also informed by the Opposite Parties by letter dtd.24/04/2001 that the outstation cheques would be collected within 7 working days only in 43 locations as per the attached list.  The copy of said letter is marked at Exh.‘J’. It is further alleged that the Opposite Party vide letter dtd.03/05/2001 had informed the Complainant that the Complainant need not maintain any required balance in the bank account and would be given the aforesaid facilities free of cost by changing facility no.2 of the previous clause and informed the Complainant that cash pick-up and delivery upto Rs.3 Lacs a day.  The copy of the said letter is marked at Exh.‘L’.  It is submitted that by letter dtd.18/05/2001 issued by Opposite Parties the Complainant was asked to maintain a minimum balance of Rs.1 Lac for the services mentioned in the letter dtd.20/04/2001 by deleting clause of National Clearing charges at Rs.25/- per item. The copy of the said letter is at Exh.‘H’. According to the Complainant, by the said letter the Opposite Parties had retracted from their previous letter dtd.03/05/2001.

5)        According to the Complainant, he had deposited an outstation cheque with the Opposite Parties, however, the Opposite Party charged an amount of Rs.200/- towards commission and other charges for the collection of the aforesaid cheque of the Complainant amounting to Rs.30,000/-.  The copy of the said letter is marked as Exh.‘Q’.  The Complainant then made correspondence to the London Office of the Opposite Party as per Exh.‘P’.  It is submitted that upon receiving the said letter by the Opposite Party by it’s letter dtd.04/06/2001, refunded an amount of Rs.30/- into the account of the Complainant.  The copy of which is marked as Exh.‘Q’.  It is submitted that as per letter at Exh.‘U’ dtd.21/06/2001, the Opposite Parties have stated that the Complainant would be provided five facilities mentioned in the letter dtd.18/05/2001 free of charge irrespective of account balance maintained by the Complainant in his bank account till 31/12/2001.  However, inspite of the same the Opposite Parties have deducted Rs.59/- towards the service charge and have made his account balance as ‘Nil’.  The copy of the said statement is marked at Exh.‘V’.  It is contended that from the correspondence of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has made out a case against Opposite Parties of unfair trade practices as well as indulging in misrepresenting the Complainant by assuring him about the various facilities that would be provided by the Opposite Party.  According to the Complainant, due to false promises & assurance of the Opposite Parties he stopped his banking operations which were maintained by him in Bank of Baroda and later on realized that the said services and facilities promised by the Opposite Parties were never given to him and thereby suffered a huge business loss.  The Complainant has therefore, prayed to grant the total claim as per the particulars mentioned in Exh.‘W’ to the complaint to the tune of Rs.3,18,750/- as stated in para 1 of this order. 

6)        The Opposite Parties contested the claim by its written submission.  It is contended that the statements and allegations made by the Complainant are made without any proof thereof.  The Complainant with malafide intentions has made this Complainant to pressurize the Opposite Parties in giving him free services which is prohibited as per the rules of the bank.  It is contended that the Complainant opened an account with the Opposite Party on 28/01/2001 and informed the Opposite Party Bank vide letter dtd.29/03/2001 that he was promised certain facilities by the employee of the Opposite Parties at the time of opening of the account, which the Opposite Parties denies. It is denied that any false statement was made for the purpose of opening account by the Opposite Parties.  On 02/04/2001 the Opposite Parties had specifically informed the Complainant that it never accepts Sales Tax and Income Tax challans.  The Opposite Parties vide letter dtd.20/04/2001 informed and clarified to the Complainant that the facilities mentioned in the letter at Exh.‘I’ would be made available only on maintaining balance of Rs.1 Lac in his account.  It is contended that if the Complainant was not satisfied after getting the said details from the Opposite Parties, he could have closed his account but he continued his account and wanted free service without maintaining minimum balance in his account.  As per letter at Exh.‘J’ to the complaint dtd.24/04/2011, the Opposite Parties clarified that the outstation cheques are being collected within 7 working days only at 43 locations as per the list attached thereto.  It is contended that on 02/05/2001, the Branch Manager of the Bank went to the office of the Complainant and as a special case for a period of 3 months allowed the Complainant all the facilities free of charge without maintaining required minimum balance in his account.  According to the Opposite Parties vide letter at Exh.‘N’ dtd.18/05/2001, it was made clear that all current account holders have required to maintain a minimum quarterly balance of Rs.50,000/- and if the said balance would not be maintained a service charge of Rs.450/- would be debited for the quarter. It is denied that any officer of the bank ever misrepresented the Complainant regarding any fact or adopted unfair trade practice as alleged.  It is contended that the Complainant is interested in enjoying all facilities without payment or maintaining minimum balance in his account which was not allowed as per the rules of the bank.  It is submitted that on 21/06/2001, as per Exh.‘U’ to the complaint the Opposite Parties informed the Complainant that as a special gesture of goodwill the facilities mentioned in the said letter will be made available to him free of charge irrespective of minimum balance till 31/12/2001. It is denied that there is any deficiency of service on the part of the bank.  The Complainant has not proved any loss or damages, it is therefore, submitted that the complaint should be dismissed with cost.                

7)        The Complainant has filed his affidavit of evidence. The Opposite Parties have filed the affidavit of Lawrence Lopes, Branch Manager of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has filed written argument and the Opposite Parties have also filed its written submission. We heard the Ld.Advocate Shri.Umesh Wale for the Complainant and Shri. Dinesh Shukla for the Opposite Parties.

8)        The case made out by the Complainant that the Opposite Parties have promised to provide the facilities as mentioned in Exh.‘A’ to the complaint are not at all proved by any documentary evidence by the Complainant.  On the other hand by letter dtd.20/04/2001 filed at Exh.‘I’ issued by the bank to the Complainant referring to his letter dtd.04/04/2001, it was specifically informed to the Complainant that the facilities mentioned in the said letter are offered free of cost on maintaining a minimum balance of Rs.1 Lac in his account.  He was also advised to maintain an average of above Rs.1 Lac to avail the facilities mentioned in the letter at Exh.‘I’.  In the letter at Exh.‘L’ issued by the bank dtd.03/05/2001 it was also informed to the Complainant that the facilities mentioned in the said letter would be given free of cost without maintaining the required balance in his current account in view of the discussion with the Complainant and the said offer would be valid for three months. By letter dtd.18/05/2001 at Exh.‘N’ the Opposite Parties again informed to the Complainant that if an average minimum balance of Rs.1 Lac would be maintained in the current account in any month, then the account holder is entitled to free of cost services mentioned in the said letter.  It was also informed to the Complainant that all current account holders are required to maintain a minimum quarterly balance for which the above services are not provided free of cost.  In the said letter it was also informed that the if the account holder does not maintain minimum quarterly balance of Rs.50,000/- in any quarter, a service charges of Rs.450/- would be levied for the quarter.  In the said letter the Opposite Parties waived the quarterly service charge of Rs.450/- up to the quarter ending September, 2001 on the condition that the minimum balance of Rs.50,000/- would not be maintained by him.  In the document at Exh.‘V’ it appears that the Complainant did not maintain the minimum balance and in the month of November, 2001 the balance of his account was Rs.59/- only.  Upon going through all the correspondence placed on the record by the Complainant, we do not find that the case made out by the Complainant in the complaint was agreed upon by the Opposite Parties at any point of time.  On the other hand it appears that inspite of the bank rules as a special gesture and bearing in mind there was inconvenience caused to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had given some concessions to the Complainant. We are of the view that whatever contentions raised by the Complainant are not proved by the Complainant by documentary evidence such as, all the while after opening of his current account with the Opposite Parties he has maintained the average balance in his account of Rs.1 Lac till the filing of the complaint and despite his grievances were not solved by the Bank.  On the other hand as per the document produced by the Complainant himself in the month of November, 2001 the balance at his account was Rs.59/- only. The Complainant has not proved how and in what manner he had sustained huge business loss due to deficiency of services on the part of Opposite Parties.  Considering all these facts we hold that the Complainant has not come out with clean hands and wrongly alleged that the Opposite Parties have indulged in unfair trade practices and misrepresented him.  In the first letter in reply to the Complainant’s grievance the Opposite Parties had specifically advised the Complainant to maintain average of above Rs.1 Lac to avail the facilities mentioned the letter at Exh.‘I’ dtd.20/04/2001.  In our view the contention raised by the Opposite Parties that if the Complainant was not satisfied after getting the details from the bank vide letter at Exh.‘I’ he could have closed his account but he continued his account and wanted free services from the bank without maintaining minimum balance in his account is acceptable. We are of the view that the Complainant has improperly alleged against the Opposite Parties for deficiency of service, damages due to making false and misleading representation at the time of opening bank account and indulged in unfair trade practices and rendered deficient services by the Opposite Parties to him. In our view the contentions raised in the complaint are nothing but the imaginations of the Complainant.  The Hon’ble State Commission of Madhya Pradesh in the case of G.A. Shukla V/s. IDBI Bank Ltd., II (2008) CPJ 295 have observed as under –

            “Bank rules required minimum balance to be maintained by every customer. The rules further provide for levying charges for not maintaining the requisite minimum balance.  Since the appellant failed to maintain minimum balance the respondent bank was justified in levying charges for the same.  The Forum below was right in holding that no deficiency could be attributed to the respondent bank on this count.  The complaint of appellant has been rightly dismissed.”

            Considering the aforesaid observations in our view in the present case the Opposite Parties have as special gesture and bearing in mind the inconvenience which the Complainant had faced waived some charges and also gave some concessions to the Complainant and the same reflects in the documents produced by the Complainant himself.  We therefore, hold that the Complainant has utterly failed to prove the case made in the complaint.  In our view the Complainant has without any basis and having any claim of loss has wrongly brought the Opposite Parties before this Forum and therefore, the claim made by the Complainant can be said frivolous or vexatious as provided under Sec.26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The submissions made by the Ld.Advocate for the Complainant for grant of reliefs claimed in the complaint are not at all convincing. We therefore, hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with an order directing to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the Opposite Party by the Complainant.  In the result the following order is passed -  

O R D E R

i.                  Complaint No.340/2001 is dismissed with a direction to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) to the Opposite Parties by the Complainant.

ii.                 The Complainant to comply the aforesaid order within one month from the receipt of this order.

iii.               Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.