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

 1)        By this complaint the Complainant has prayed it be held and declared that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).  It is prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to refund Rs.10/- with interest @ 18% to each and every customers with suitable compensation. The Complainant has further prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.2,20,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization as compensation for mental agony, trouble and stress suffered by him and half of which should be deposited in Consumer Welfare Fund maintained by this Forum.  It is also prayed that the Opposite Parties be directed to pay the cost of this complaint to the Complainant. 

2)        According to the Complainant, he is consumer within the meaning and definition of consumer u/s. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and had availed service of the Opposite Parties within the meaning and definition of service u/s2(1)(o) of the said Act.  It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice u/s. 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(r) of the said Act.  It is alleged that the Complainant is having two savings account and one current account with the Opposite Party No.2 since 2006.  The copies of which are at Exh.‘A’ & ‘B’.  According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.2 debited an amount of Rs.10.3 on 31/07/2010 and again credited his account on 02/08/2010 and also an amount of Rs.19.85 on 12/02/2007 which was not credited to his account by the Opposite Party No.2 and the amount of Rs.10/- was debited on 23/08/2008 and credited to the account of the Complainant on 15/09/2010. The said amounts were debited towards Personal Accident Insurance 5028 which is shown in the document at Exh.‘C’.  According to the Complainant, such small debits are overlooked by the customers and the Opposite Parties are making huge profit by such illegal debits.  According to the Complainant, he had taken-up the matter with the Opposite Party and came to know that the Opposite Parties have debited such amount to all the accounts without any prior permission and even the Branch Manager did not know the reasons of such debit.  It is alleged that the Sr. Branch Manager was not knowing what was the benefit of such insurance costing Rs.10/-.  The Complainant has relied the information called under RTI Act, as per the documents at Exh.‘D’ & ‘E’.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have illegally held the huge amount so collected from the millions of Account Holders which is unfair and the said acts is scandalous. The complainant has submitted that the Opposite Parties have collected minimum of Rs.10 Lacs from its account holders.  The Complainant has prayed that the Opposite Parties should refund all debit of Rs.10/- with interest @ 18% p.a. to its respective customers. 

 3)        The Complainant has also come out with the case that he has purchased one pay order of Rs.100/- from Opposite Party No.2 and paid Rs.22/- as commission.  The Complainant thereafter needed some correction in the said pay order instead of Central Mumbai as South Mumbai.  According to the Complainant, the officer of the Opposite Party No.2 has advised that the pay order is for the Court so it is better to have fresh pay order instead of making correction for which the Complainant agreed.  The Complainant thereafter found that the Opposite Party No.2 had charged Rs.55 as cancellation charges and charged Rs.22/- as fresh commission for the pay order of Rs.100/-.  According to the Complainant, the pay order was handwritten and even the computer generated can be altered and signed.  The pay order was not affix with salo tape.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties cannot collect Rs.77/- for giving a normal service.  The Complainant has prayed for a compensation of Rs.1,000/-.  The Complainant has also alleged that the Opposite Parties advised the Complainant on the basis of security of Fixed Deposit Receipts, the Complainant will be granted an overdraft limit by opening such account with the Opposite Party.  It is alleged that the Opposite Party No.2 had charged an amount of s.57/- being folio charges for the period 16/11/2010 till 31/12/2010 and Rs.82,75 being cheque book charges.  The Complainant on 12/01/2011 by letter at Exh.‘G’ informed the Opposite Party No.2 that he is not interested in such expensive account and he is willing to close the account and return the unused cheque book.  It is submitted that the Opposite Parties have not come with any positive solution. The Complainant has therefore, claimed compensation of Rs.1,000/- for such unfair act on the part of the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has thus, prayed that the reliefs claimed in para 1 of this order may be granted against the Opposite Parties.

 4)        The Opposite Parties though appeared through Advocate, but failed to file their written statement.  The complaint therefore, proceeded without written statement of Opposite Parties.  The Complainant has filed written argument and the Opposite Parties have also filed written argument. We heard the oral arguments of Complainant in person and Shri. Akash Acharya, the Ld.Advocate for the Opposite Parties. 

5)        While considering the claim made in the complaint by the Complainant we find that the relief claimed to direct the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.10/- each with interest @ 18% p.a. to each and every customers with suitable compensation cannot be entertained and allowed as the present complaint is not filed with the permission of this Forum on behalf of, or for the benefit of, all consumers so interested as provided u/s.12(1)(c) of the Act.  We therefore, hold that the claim made as above cannot be said maintainable and granted as prayed by the Complainant. 

6)        The claim made for compensation of Rs.1,000/- on account of collection of charges of Rs.77/- towards the pay order drawn from the Opposite Party No.2 also cannot be said granted as the Complainant has specifically avoided to give the date of such transaction with Opposite Party No.2.  However, from the letter which is placed on record by the Complainant it appears that the Complainant had approached to the Opposite Party No.2 for obtaining the first pay order on 08/05/2009 and thereafter, he approached for cancellation of the said pay order to the Opposite Party No.2 on 12/05/2009 and the first pay order was cancelled at the request of the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 issued new pay order by collecting applicable service charges. The Complainant has produced the copy of the said letter issued by the Bank dtd.29/05/2010 wherein the bank has explained the validity of collecting such charges in view of the guidelines issued by RBI.  In our view as held in the case of Archana M. Kamth V/s. Canara Bank, reported in AIR 2003 Supreme Court 1694 wherein it is held that it is not within the jurisdiction of the Forums to go into that question relating to pricing of such services. We thus, hold that the contention raised regarding collection of charges as regards pay orders to the tune of Rs.77/- by the Opposite Parties cannot be entertained by this Forum and the Complainant is not entitled for any compensation on that count.    

7)        The case made out by the Complainant regarding his overdraft limit account and charging of Rs.82.75 and Rs.57/- towards cheque-book charges and folio charges respectively also cannot be entertained as Complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to that effect, such as agreement and copy of account opening form, etc.  Hence, in view of the observations quoted above in the case of Archana M. Kamth (Supra) the claim of compensation of Rs.1,000/- cannot be granted in favour of Complainant.

8)        The present complaint also cannot be held maintainable as the Complainant has come out with multiple causes of action regarding different transactions and of different dates.  No specific documents have also been produced by the Complainant to substantiate the claim made in the complaint. The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.2,20,000/- for public interest litigation and Rs.1,000/- each for his personal grievances regarding collection of excess charges for pay orders obtained by him from the Opposite Party No.2 and Rs.1,000/- as compensation from the Opposite Parties for in valid charges charged by the Opposite Party No.2 towards his overdraft account.  In our view al the reliefs which are claimed are vague in nature. No substantial evidence on record is produced which is based on different causes of action and therefore, we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no order as to cost.  In the result the following order is passed –

O R D E R

i.                    Complaint No.73/2011 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

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