Ld. Advocate for both sides are present. Judgement is ready and is pronounced in open Commission. 

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party is a Private Bank with whom the Complainant has a Current Account No.090305000243 since 2009 for business transaction under the name and style of M/s. Calcutta Furnace Work.

2. Since very inception of the said account, a Minimum Monthly Account Balance of Rs.10,000.00 is maintainable which the Complainant has maintained since the year 2009 to 2016 and therefore, no deduction of Minimum Account Balance Charge – NMMABC.

3. The first NMMAB Charges deducted by the Op due to fall of Minimum Monthly Account Balance of Rs.10,000.00 during the year 2017 to 2019 as per the statement annexed by the Complainant.

4. The Complainant lodged several complaints before the Op as per the annexed email communications for reversing the charges but, the Op didn’t pay any heed.

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred to file the instant case before this Commission.

6. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 19.11.2019 when the Op lastly realized the amount towards NMMAB Charges.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for directing the Op:-

1. To Return/Refund the charges of Rs.34,395.76 realized from the account of the Complainant by the Op.

2. To pay Compensation of Rs.50,000.00 for negligence and deficiency in service, business loss and illegal realization of service charges.

3. To pay Litigation Cost of Rs.10,000.00 to the Complainant for conducting the case.

4. Any other order/orders as this Commission deed fit and proper.

7. The Op being represented by its’ Learned Advocate has contested the case by filing Written Version against the Complaint. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law and the Complainant has no locus standi or cause of action because the Complainant is not at all a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Current Account is for carrying out the business transaction of the Complainant and hence the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 does not and cannot apply. As such the Complainant ceased to be consumer and is not entitled to claim any relief as consumer. Moreover, the Op does not fall within the definition of ‘Deficiency’ u/s 2(G) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because there is neither any fault, imperfection or shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance as alleged by the Complainant. Therefore, the allegations made in the petition are frivolous, baseless and misconceived and is liable to be dismissed and rejected.

8. The Monthly Minimum Account Balance of Rs.10,000.00 for the said C/A No.090305000243 of the Complainant in the name and style of Calcutta Furnace Work is not correct. The actual facts of the case are as follows :-

1. On 04.09.2009, the Complainant approached and applied to the Op for opening a C/A for his business purpose in the name and style of Calcutta Furnace Work with a condition to maintain a Monthly Average Balance (MAB) of Rs.50,000.00 as per Annexure – ‘A’ submitted by the Op.

2. The Op called upon the Complainant to maintain a Monthly Average Balance (MAB) but, the Complainant failed to maintain the same as contractually agreed.

3. The Complainant has clearly filed the above case in gross suppression and/or distortion of the material facts in an attempt to avoid his liability and to frustrate the legitimate claim of the Op.

9. Under the above circumstances, the Op prayed for dismissal of the instant case with exemplary costs.

10. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law?                
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

11. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant evidence adduced along with all papers and other documents. The Complainant vide a Petition dated: 02.05.2022 prayed for treating the Complaint as Evidence-in-Chief and it has been accepted accordingly.

3. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that there is no dispute that the Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Op, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

4. Having regards had to the evidence of the Complainant, it clearly transpires in the Bank Statement of the Complainant, the Op deducted charges from the Current Account of the Complainant during the period from 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 for Rs.9,945.00; 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 for Rs.12,060.76 and 01.04.2019 to 31.03.2020 for Rs.12,390.00 i.e. Rs.34,395.76 in total during the Three Financial Years.

5. From the email dated: 30.09.2019 by the Op, the type of Current Account of the Complainant is mentioned as ‘Premium Variant Account’. In the Bank Copy of Customer Undertaking for Opening Current Account submitted on 04.09.2009, the Customer i.e. the Complainant undertook to maintain a Monthly Average Balance (MAB) of Rs.50,000.00 with the Op by putting his signature as showing his consent.

6. In the Roaming Current Account Application Form as annexed by the Op, the Monthly Average Balance (MAB) maintainable amount is clearly mentioned as Rs.50,000.00 with a signature for consent of acceptance by the Complainant.

7. The Roaming Current Account Schedule of Charges w.e.f Nov 01^st, 2011, the NMMAB Charges for Premium Current Account is mentioned as Rs.500.00 (Excluding GST) and w.e.f Dec 1^st, 2017 as Rs.1,500.00 (Excluding GST).

8. Therefore, the Complainant can’t claim that he opened the Current Account with undertaking for maintaining a Minimum Average Balance (MAB) amounting to Rs.10,000.00 instead of Rs.50,000.00. Rather, the Complainant failed to produce supporting evidence in respect of his claim that he had to maintain Minimum Average Balance (MAB) of Rs.10,000.00 whereas his submitted supporting document i.e. email correspondence and submitted account opening forms with undertaking by the Op is a clear evidence for intimation of maintainability of Minimum Average Balance (MAB) of Rs.50,000.00 as well as applicable Bank Charges. The Complainant fails to prove his grievances against the Op. Moreover, it appears that the bank account is not in the name of the Complainant but, in the name of his business namely M/s. Calcutta Furnace Work. Thus, the case is bad for misjoinder of party. Therefore, it clearly transpires from the above that there is no element of negligence and deficiency in service by the Op.

1. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs. The Complainant is not eligible for any relief.

10. Both the points are decided accordingly.

11. Thus, the Complaint case does not succeed.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-34 of 2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest, however without any order for cost.

The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Parties free of costs.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this  judgment.