Complainant a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having name and style  Jameco Agencies Pvt. Ltd. by filing this complainant has submitted that he has a savings account  bearing No.336500103-2 with the op for more than forty years and on 10.07.2009 op intimated the complainant to provide with the documents mentioned therein to comply with ‘Know Your Customer’ norms in terms of the RBI Circulation dated 18.02.2008 and accordingly complainant duly sent all the requisite documents by a letter dated 25.11.2009 and the same was received by the op on the same day and thereafter on 20.12.2009 the complainant duly sent the requisite documents to Shri Pradeep Kumar Jajodia, another Director of the complainant in response of the letter dated 10.07.2009 of the op and the same was received by the op on the same day.  However complainant sent the requisite documents by letter to the op and the same was received by the op on 13.04.2010 as per required of the op and ultimately on 09.05.2011 op intimated the complainant that if requisite documents in view of the letter dated 10.07.2009 would not be submitted by 08.05.2011 in that case op would be constrained to resist the services and all transactions on account of complainant by 08.07.2011 and in respect of that letter dated 09.05.2011 complainant duly sent relevant documents on 26.05.2011 and ultimately on 01.10.2011 op again sent letter to the complainant and requested to submit all documents by 09.05.2011 and against that complainant sent requisite documents by its letter dated 19.10.2011.

          Thereafter on 08.11.2011 complainant issued a cheque bearing No.233639 in its name and deposited the same with Canara Bank for Rs.1,35,000/- and the said cheque was returned by the op with remarks ‘Account Blocked’ although the complainant had sufficient fund in its account with the op to pay the amount and on enquiry it was told by the representative of the op that the account of the complainant has been blocked for non-submission of KYC details.

          Subsequently, on 05.11.2011 complainant received one letter from the op by which op has received KYC documents but require further details namely details of shareholders as per latest annual account signed by the Company Secretary or Chartered Accountant, copy of residence address proof of Ms Upadhyay Bharti – Authorised Signatory and its address proof provided does not tally with the Bank record and on  receipt the same bank account block shall be withdrawn and finding no other alternative complainant company sent a Legal Notice dated 22.11.2011 through its Advocate but even after receive of that op did not act and for which complainant has suffered very much and for adopting unfair trade practice by the op practically complainant is unable to handle the said account and the act of the op by blocking the current account is completely illegal, so complainant has prayed for withdrawing the hold in operation of the account No.33605001032 with the op.

          On the other hand op by filing written version submitted that practically several discrepancies are in the set of the documents and the discrepancies had been communicated vide its letters dated 15.11.2010, 09.05.2011, 01.10.2011, 30.12.2011, 20.03.2012 and 05.04.2012 and further it was submitted that complainant did not provide with latches only return of ROC receipts where the last AGM date should not exceed 12 months along with details of the directors and all the share holders’ photograph, identity proof along with the residence address proof for two main directors, all the authorized signatories and 25% beneficial owners.

          It is further submitted that there are discrepancies in the Form 20B about the shareholders details hence invalid and ROC also did not possess the entire share holder’s details, hence it was invalid and the 2^nd set of documents had been received by the op Bank on 15.04.2010, From 20B, but From 20B does not possess the entire share holder’s details, so same are invalid and 3^rd set of documents as received by the op Bank on 19.04.2010  also did not possess the entire share holder’s details and 4^th set of documents are taken for discrepancy does not possess share holder’s details and in both cases are invalid.  Moreover discrepancy in respect of AGM date is greater than 12 months and fact remains op restricted the handling of account as KYC had not been properly made.  But practically for several discrepancies as mentioned in the KYC cannot be properly recorded and it is further submitted that on repeated demand complainant did not submit all the documents deliberately and for which the account was declared Hold.   It is further submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable because complainant is a company and at the same time the transaction is commercial transaction and for which the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit as he is not a consumer in the eye of law.

                                                   Decision with reasons

          After hearing the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the entire materials it is found that no doubt complainant is the holder of a current account under the op and op has not denied it but fact remains that as per regulation of the RBI, complainant is bound to submit KYC and if the KYC is submitted timely the current account shall be stood closed for the protection of the Bank.  But Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that complainant is a private limited company maintaining a current account for exclusively for commercial purpose and that is the subject matter and in the complaint there is no such pleading that complainant has been possessing that current account or business only for his self employment.  So, complainant is not a consumer of the op as per law and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

          Another factor is that complainant in fact did not submit KYC properly and that matter shall be decided if there is any discrepancy the complainant may appear to Ombusdmen or Civil Court because complainant is not a consumer within the purview of the present C.P. Act and as per law the complainant cannot get any relief by this Forum and Forum has no jurisdiction to decide such dispute.  The question of giving relief to the complainant does not arise.

          Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that company comes under the purview of the definition of clause “Person” and as per CP Act any person is entitled to get relief if service provider does not render service properly to the customer which is admitted fact that complainant is a customer and consumer.

          On hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the present status of the complainant as evident from the complaint that complainant is a company being a commercial concerned and there is no such assertion in the complaint that this commercial business is being run by the complainant for his self employment and for their livelihood and in the above circumstances we have considered the definition of consumer and also the fact of entire transaction in between the parties the commercial transaction and practically current account was given by the op to resolve the financial difficulty being faced by the complainant which is completely commercial activity and so in view of the provision of section 2(i)(d)(ii) of the CP Act 1986 it is completely commercial unit.  Moreover complainant being pure company hired service exclusively for commercial purpose from the op.  So, complainant cannot be a consumer in the eye of law and in this regard we have followed the ruling reported in NCDRC in I (2012) CPJ (NC) including the Exclusion Clause 2 (1)(d) of I & II and we are confirmed that the present complainant does not match under the purview of Section 2 (1)(d)  (I) or (II) on the ground the Exclusion Clause of 2/1(d) after special Clause – I does not attract.  On the contrary it is found that it is a matter regarding compliance of the RBI Rules by the complainant as the complainant has not complied it and for that reason complainant has every right to go to Ombusdmen or to satisfy the Banking Authority where his account stands that he has complied with it.  But due to legal fiction this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the complainant as because we are of the opinion that complainant is not a consumer as per provision of Section 2(I)(d) and I & II with Exclusion Clause of C.P. Act. 

          In the light of the above findings we decide this case on merit by holding that present complainant company is not a consumer and for this complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                        ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the ops without any cost.