IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.
CONSUMER CASE NO. : 71/S/2015. DATED : 09.08.2017.
BEFORE PRESIDENT : SMT. KRISHNA PODDAR,
President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.
MEMBER : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA
COMPLAINANT : SRI KUL CHHATRA PRASAD AGARWAL,
S/O. Late Ganeshi Lal Agarwal,
Resident of Sevoke Road, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,
Dist.- Darjeeling (West Bengal) being the Proprietor of
M/S Joy Service Station, Siliguri, Dist.- Darjeeling,
West Bengal. Mob. No. – 98320 89435.
O.P. : THE BRANCH MANAGER,
IDBI Bank Limited,
Nanak Tower, P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,
Dist.- Darjeeling, West Bengal, Pin- 734 001.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT : Sri S. K. Mitruka, Advocate.
FOR THE OP : Sri Sudip Bhattacharje, Advocate.
J U D G E M E N T
Smt. Krishna Poddar, Ld. President.
Brief facts of the complaint case are that the complainant is running the business of oil distribution for earning his livelihood in the name and style “M/s Joy Service Station” and also used to maintain its account with HDFC Bank, State Bank of India and also swap machine of the said bank. In course of his business the OP IDBI bank by its letter dated 10.09.2010 approached the complainant and offered to provide the different banking services and in view of personal request of the OP bank through its authorized officer the complainant opened one bank account with the OP bank after closing all bank accounts as maintained with said other banks. In the month of January, 2012 the complainant found that the OP bank has started to debit the account of the complainant on different pretext and on different heads without any written information to the complainant and accordingly the complainant by a letter dated 09.01.2012 requested the OP to reverse the said entries by crediting the said amount which the OP bank has started to debit in the account of the complainant since January, 2012. Even after receipt of the said letter the OP bank had not stopped to debit the account and neglected to reverse the said entries which were already debited in the account of the complainant. Complainant again sent another letter dated 12.07.2012 to the OP bank and categorically stated that OP has debited a sum of Rs.1.30 lacs (Approx.) from January, 2012 to May, 2012 and then the OP bank gave assurance to the complainant to solve the matter within June, 2012 but neither the OP credited the said amount nor solve the matter in any way.
On perusal of the bank account the complainant found that the OP bank has debited a sum of Rs.375/- in January, 2012, Rs.88,107.99/- in February, 2012, Rs.26,318/- in March, 2012 and Rs.6,004/- in between April, 2012 to January, 2013 totaling a sum of Rs.1,20,804.99/-.
It has been asserted by the complainant that at the time of opening the bank account, the OP bank categorically told the complainant that it would not debit the account of the complainant in any way on any head, but the OP bank has debited the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,20,804.99/- without giving any information in any way. The complainant is legally entitled to get the reverse of the said entries which the OP bank has unauthorizedly debited in the account of the complainant since January, 2012 onwards together with interest as accrued thereon. Accordingly, the complainant sent one letter dated 18.07.2013 to the OP bank through his lawyer Sri S. K. Mitruka through registered post with A/D and soon after receipt of the said legal notice, the OP bank contacted with the complainant through its authorized officers and asked the complainant to wait for some more time on the ground of auditing work of their accounts and assured the complainant to reverse the said entries in the said bank account of the complainant and/or to refund the said amount separately by issuing a banker’s cheque positively within the period of the financial year i.e., 31st March, 2014 but the OP did not refund the said amount to the complainant even within 31st March, 2014. Such act on the part of the delinquent officials of OP is unjustified and unreasonable and the OP bank has been found deficient and negligent in the matter of performance of work and services. The complainant has been harassed without having any cause and suffered mental pain and agony due to such negligent and deficiency of service on the part of the OP and OP had/has also been found involved in unfair trade practices and accordingly the complainant has filed the instant case against the OP bank with a prayer to direct the OP to credit the bank account of the complainant for payment of a sum of Rs.1,20,804.99/- towards the refund of the amount debited and further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and negligence and harassment and further a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony and litigation cost.
The OP entered appearance and contested the case by filing a written version wherein the material averments made in the complainant have been denied and it has been contended inter-alia that the instant case is not maintainable. It has been contended by the OP that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under the OP and therefore not entitled to come before this Forum for any relief against the OP. It has been further submitted by the OP that the current account vide no.182102000009638 under scheme Code RCGEN maintained by the complainant in the name of his proprietorship business with the OP was opened in the year 2010 on being satisfied with the terms and conditions as applicable in respect of maintaining the said account and in respect of other operational aspect and on 11.01.2012 the complainant requested the OP to upgrade the said account as he has been able to maintain the stipulated average quarterly balance of Rs.10,00,000/- only as applicable under scheme Code RCSPL and considering the request of the complainant account was duly upgraded to scheme code RCSPL but since the time of up gradation of the aforesaid account to scheme Code RCSPL, the complainant failed to maintain the average quarterly balance and therefore as per rules, the alleged amount has been debited from the account of the complainant. It has been further submitted by the OP that OP is guided by its own rules as a financial institution and also the rules and regulations provided by RBI and since the date of up gradation of the account of the complainant to scheme code RCSPL the complainant failed to keep his words in maintaining the average quarterly balance as applicable and as per the rules the alleged amount have been debited from the aforesaid account of the complainant. It has been further submitted by the OP that at the time of opening as well as up gradation of the account the complainant was in sufficient knowledge that the required average quarterly balance in his account shall always have to be maintained to avoid any short of debutante from his account for shortfall of average quarterly balance but he failed to maintain the average quarterly balance and as such he is not entitled to get any relief as claimed for and the instant case is liable to be dismissed.
To prove the case the complainant has filed the following documents :-
1. Xerox copy of the offer letter dated 10.09.2010 received from the OP bank.
2. Xerox copy of the bank statement of the complainant for the periods from
24th September, 2010 to 30th October, 2010.
3. Xerox copy of the letter dated 09.01.12 addressed to the OP bank.
4. Xerox copy of the statement showing the debit of Rs.375/- in the bank
account of the complainant in January, 2012 together with relevant bank
statements.
5. Xerox copy of the statement showing the debit of Rs.88,107.99/- in the
bank account of the complainant in February, 2012 together with relevant
bank statements.
6. Xerox copy of the statement showing the debit of Rs.26,318/- in the bank
account of the complainant in March, 2012 together with relevant bank statements.
7. Xerox copy of the statement showing the debit of Rs.6,004/- in the bank
account of the complainant from 01st April, 2012 to 04th February, 2013
together with relevant bank statements.
8. Xerox copy of the letter dated 12.07.2012 addressed to the OP bank.
9. Xerox copy of the legal notice dated 18.07.2013 sent to the OP bank
together with A/D card.
List of the documents submitted on the side of the OP:-
1. Certified copy of letter dated 11.01.2012.
2. Certified copy of Schedule of facilities (w.e.f. January 1, 2012).
Complainant has filed evidence in-chief.
Complainant has filed written notes of argument.
OP has filed evidence-in-chief.
OP has filed Written Notes of Argument.
Points for decision
1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning under Section
2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986.
2. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
All these three issues are taken up together for the brevity and convenience of discussion.
It is admitted fact that the current account vide no.1821000009638 under the scheme Code RCGEN has been maintained by the complainant in the name of his proprietorship business “M/S Joy Service Station” with the OP since the year 2010.
This is the specific case of the complainant that being approached by the OP IDBI Bank by its letter dated 10.09.2010 and offered to provide the different banking services the complainant opened the above mentioned account with the OP bank closing all his bank accounts lying with SBI and HDFC Bank. In the month of January, 2012 the complainant found that the OP bank has started to debit the account of the complainant on different pretext and different heads even without giving any written information and thus debited a sum of Rs.1.30 lacs approximate from January to May, 2012. The complainant vide his letters dated 09.01.2012 and 12.07.12 requested the OP to reverse the said entries by crediting the said amount but neither the OP credited the said amount nor solve the matter in any way. Accordingly the complainant through his advocate sent a letter dated 18.07.2013 to the OP bank through registered post with A/D and requested to make the payment of a sum of Rs.1,20,804.99/- to the complainant together with interest @18% per annum as accrued thereon within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter/notice. But in spite of receipt of the notice, the OP bank did not pass any reverse entries in the said bank Account and/or refund the said amount to the complainant and such acts of the OP bank compelled the complainant to file this case for proper redress.
It has been contended by the ld. advocate of the OP bank during his course of argument that the complainant is not consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and accordingly he is not entitled to come before this Forum for any relief. It has been submitted by the ld advocate of the OP that the complainant is a current account holder in the OP bank which account was admittedly opened and used for business purpose and since the account itself is connected and related to the business transactions and such banking activity is required for the functioning of a given business enterprise of the complainant, services hired for that purpose would fall within the category of hiring services for commercial purpose which the complainant runs not wholly by self employment of himself.
The ld advocate of the complainant on the other hand has claimed that the complainant is the proprietor of “M/S Joy Service Station” and earning his livelihood by doing business and in course of his said business OP bank approached and offered to the complainant different banking services by its letter dated 10.09.2010 and assured that the OP bank would not debit the said account on any head and in response to the said letter, the complainant opened one bank account with the OP bank after closing all other accounts maintained with other banks and hired the banking services by depositing the fund from time to time and so the complainant is the consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.
The first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the complainant can be said to be a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act or not.
Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 reads as follows :-
Consumer means any person who - (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or partly promised or partly paid or partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose.
It would thus be seen that if a person obtains goods from another person for resale or for any commercial purpose he cannot be said to be a consumer as defined in the Act.
Here it appears that the complainant is the proprietor of “M/S Joy Service Station”, the Indian Oil Distributors. The oil products are being supplied by the Indian Oil Corporation to the complainant for the purpose of reselling the same and not for the complainant’s own consumption. The complainant is also earning profit on the resale of the oil though it is in the form of commission fixed by the corporation from time to time.
Here it appears that the complainant is making money in the form of commission which the Indian Oil Corporation is paying to it so the complainant would not be a consumer as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
So far as Issue Nos.2 & 3 are concerned we find that the complainant maintained the account No. 1821000009638 under scheme Code RCGEN in the name of his proprietorship business with the OP since 2010 being approached by the OP bank by its letter dated 10.09.2010 and said account was opened after the complainant got himself satisfied with the terms and conditions as applicable in respect of maintaining the said account and in respect of operational aspect. On perusal of the certified copy of letter dated 11.01.2012 submitted by the OP bank we find that the complainant being the sole proprietor of his business vide letter 11.01.2012 requested the OP to upgrade his said account as he has been able to maintain the stipulated balance as applicable in maintaining the current account vide Account No.1821000009638 under scheme Code RCGEN, and by that letter assured the OP that the complainant shall be maintaining the stipulated average quarterly balance of Rs.10,00,000/- only applicable under scheme Code RCSPL. We further find that considering the request of the complainant the aforesaid account was duly upgraded to scheme Code RCSPL by the OP bank. But this fact is totally suppressed by the complainant in his complaint petition as well as in the evidence. It is the contention of the OP that since the time of upgradation of the disputed account of the complainant to scheme Code RCSPL the complainant failed to maintain the average quarterly balance as applicable and therefore, the OP as per its own rules as a financial institution and also the rules and regulation provided by RBI has debited the alleged amount from the account of the complainant. In this regard the OP bank has submitted the certified copy of the current account IDBI schedule of facilities (w.e.f. January 1, 2012). On perusal of the said schedule of facilities, submitted on the side of the OP bank we further find that special facilities shall be withdrawn if the average balance is not maintained for two consecutive quarters. At the time of upgradation of the account of the complainant the complainant was well aware that the required average quarterly balance in his account shall always have to be maintained to avoid any short of debutante from his account for shortfall of average quarterly balance. But the complainant has failed to maintain the average quarterly balance as applicable under scheme Code RCSPL with revised terms and conditions with effect from January 1. 2012 and as a result the OP bank debited the alleged amount from the account of the complainant.
The complainant has totally suppressed the letter dated 11.01.2012 by virtue of which he requested the OP bank to upgrade the disputed account under scheme Code RCSPL for availing certain special facilities. Here we find that the complainant has not come before this Forum with clean hands and as such he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Issue Nos.1, 2 & 3 are thus disposed of against the complainant.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the Consumer Case No.71/S/2015 is dismissed on contest against the OP without cost.
Let copies of this judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost.
