Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/16/2020

M/s.Mayura Industrial Service - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.S.V.Udayakumar

17 Oct 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on : 20.06.2018

Date of Disposal                : 17.10.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHENNAI(NORTH)

2^nd  Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-600 003.

PRESENT :  THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                                       : PRESIDENT

                       TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.                         : MEMBER-I

                       THIRU V. RAMAMURTHY, B.A., B.L., PGDLA : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No. 16/2020

 

DATED THIS DAY MONDAY THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

 

M/s.Mayura’s Industrial Services,

Representing by its Managing Partner,

Mr.N.Harihara Subramaniyan,

No.25, Crescent Nagar,

West Shenoy Nagar,

Chennai-600 030.                                                          ….  Complainant

 

…Vs…

 

The Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank,

Anna Nagar Branch,

A-78,Plot No.3211,

3^rd Avenue,

Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 102

                                                                                       …..Opposite party.

                                     

Counsel for Complainant                   : M/s.S.V.Udayakumar and 4 other

 

 Counsel for opposite party                  : M/s.Sai Krishnan Associates.

 

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,       : PRESIDENT

          This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer protection Act 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.750000/- for their deficiency in service and to direct the opposite party to pay a compensation of Rs.200000/- for causing mental agony and loss of reputation to the complainant and cost of the proceedings.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF :

The complainant submitted that he is registered partnership firm and having business more than 29 years in the field of sale and servicing of Industrial Automation products. The complainant having bank A/c.No.602705035149 with the opposite party.  The complainant stated that the opposite party during March 2016 over phone has asked for the submission of KYC documents and the complainant had respondent and there is no written intimation from the opposite party nor any further reminder over phone on the subject of KYC thereafter. The complainant during the month of March 2016 had issued various cheques.  All the cheques were not honoured by the opposite party despite the fact that the complainant had sufficient balance in the account. The opposite party is mention of the account being blocked for want of KYC documents. The complainant stated that he was shocked by the bouncing of the cheques in spite of funds being available they sent their accounts officer and then the Dy.Manager to check on this and were totally dismayed by the irresponsible replies of the opposite party’s. The complainant sent various emails to the customer care department to the opposite party dated 24.03.2016, 25.03.2016 and 30.03.2016.  Further the complainant stated that in the next few days the block was removed the agony and damage the series of episodes and bouncing of cheques created, the complainant had decided to proceed legally and sent notice on 05.06.2016 to the opposite party and the complainant approached this forum for seeking compensation  of damages.  Further the complainant prayed that the compensation for a sum of Rs.750000/- and Rs.200000/- for causing mental agony.

2. WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY   OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF

                   The opposite party submitted that the complaint preferred by complainant is not maintainable and barred by limitation, and the same is filed before this forum beyond the limitation period of 2 years from the date of cause action, and arose on 18.03.2016,  the complainant ought to have been filed on or before 17.03.2018 with the limitation of two years from the date of cause of action as contemplated under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence  the complaint is clearly barred by limitation.  Further contended that the complainant being a partnership firm doing business and hence will not come under the Clause Consumer.  The opposite party admitted that he had communicated over phone to the complainant to provide the KYC documents according to the RBI guidelines on KYC norms banks are required to update the proof, identity and address. Updating KYC details regularly ensures the security of the customers accounts. The bank has informed to the complainant in several times over phone and also sent letter intimating to provide KYC documents.  But no response from the complainant, the complainants account was freezed  on 21.03.2016 for want of KYC documents. Further submitted that the cheque number 737246,737247,737248,737249,737250, the cheques leave were rejected with the reason Account blocked as the account was debit freezed due to requirement of KYC documents. Further on receipt of the documents from the complainant and after proper validations debit freezed marked was removed on 24.03.2016.  Hence the complainant misleading the forum for his wrongful gain. The complainant had issued legal notice on 05.06.2016 and the reply was issued by the opposite party on 13.07.2016. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complaint may be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the Opposite parties ?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed in the complaint.  If so, to what extent?

The Proof Affidavit was filed by the Complainant as his evidence and the documents were marked as Ex. A1 to A11.  The  opposite party filed proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to B4 were marked on his side.

4. POINT NO. 1 and 2:

The fact that the complainant was maintaining a current account with the opposite party bank and operating since 2006 and hence the complainant is a customer availing the services of the bank is not disputed by both the parties.  The complainant in Para.3 of complaint alleged that it is a registered partnership firm having established firm for more than 29 years in the field of sales and servicing of industrial automation products and in the course of business dealings the five cheques issued by the complainant to its customers were not honoured by the opposite party despite the complainant having sufficient balance in its account and it claimed that those five cheques were returned by the opposite party on the ground of account blocked and hence contended that the opposite party never demanded KYC documents and never informed a final day for giving KYC document by the complainant and hence contended that the return of cheques amounted to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and thereby its reputation with their suppliers spoiled and hence claimed compensation against the opposite party. 

5.  But whereas the opposite party contended that the return of cheque were on 21.03.2016 but the complaint was filed on 20.06.2018 and hence contended it is barred by limitation and further stated that the complainant was having roaming current account and the complainant is a partnership firm doing commercial activity and hence it doesnot fall within a meaning of consumer and further stated that the as per the RBI guidelines on KYC norms the banks are required to periodically update the idendification date of their customer with their photograph identity proof and address and even after making several phone calls and letter the complainant has not submitted the KYC documents and hence the account was freezed  on 21.03.2016 and on receipt of document received  from the complainant the freezing was removed on 24.03.2016 and the cheques were returned as account blocked and not dishonoured and therefore contended there is no deficiency in service on their part.

6.  In  para.3 of the complaint  the complainant admitted that it is a partnership firm carrying on commercial activity and the returned cheques were also admittedly issue to the complainants customer/suppliers  the partnership letter given at the time of opening of account is marked as Ex.B2 and the partnership deed dated 01.04.2003 is marked as Ex.B3 in which it is found that the firm is represented by three partners and it is further found as per clause.7 of the deed the profit or loss of the firm after such deduction will be divided equally among the three partners.  There is no averment of proof that complainant is doing business for leading livelihood. The present complaint is filed by the one of the Managing partner hence it is evident that the complainant firm is a commercial entity and as per Sec.2(7)(ii) in Consumer Protection Act 2019 the complainant who avails the services of the opposite party bank for commercial purpose will not come under the purview of the Consumer. 

7.  The Email communication between the complainant and opposite party on various dates in the year 2016 were marked as Ex.A1 to A5  and for Ex.A6 legal notice a reply was given by the opposite party on 13.07.2016 wherein the opposite party explain that want of KYC details the complainant account was blocked and since the complainant has not submitted the require document the account was freezed and the five cheques were returned as account was blocked.  It is further found from Ex.A9 that on receipt of document from the complainant the freezing of account was removed within three days i.e. on24.03.2016 and it was also communicated to the complainant.  Though it is alleged by the opposite party that the complaint is barred by limitation in view of the fact of exchange of Email from 24.03.2016 and also in view of Ex.A6 to A11it is found that the claim of the complainant is within the time limit.

8.  It is found from the documents filed by both the parties that the opposite party has requested the complainant to submit KYC documents as per the RBI guidelines and even though no time limit was fixed by the opposite party for submitting the same since the complainant itself in para.5 admitted that the opposite party in Mar 2016 over phone asked for submission of KYC documents which was not submitted by the complainant which lead to freezing of account and consequent the return of five cheques issued by the complainant and it is purely due to the negligence of the complainant is non submitting the documents as required by the opposite party and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as alleged in the complaint. Point no.1 and 2 answered accordingly.

9. POINT NO.3

Based on finding given Point no.1 and 2,  since the complainant is not a consumer and since there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party  and hence the complainant is not entitled for compensation for deficiency in service and for mental agony as claimed in the complaint.

 

               In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

           Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 17^th   day of October 2022.

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT

Ex. A1	24.03.2016	Email by complainant.
Ex. A2	25.03.2016	Email reply from opposite party.
Ex. A3	25.03.2016	Email by complainant.
Ex.A4	26.03.2016	Email reply from opposite party.
Ex.A5	30.03.2016	Email by complainant.
Ex.A6	05.06.2016	Legal notice by complainant.
Ex.A7	13.07.2016	Reply from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A8	16.07.2016	Reminder to opposite party.
Ex.A9	29.08.2016	Reply from opposite party to complainant.
Ex.A10	21.10.2016	Reminder notice to opposite party.
Ex.A11	16.11.2016	Reply from opposite party to complainant.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY.

Ex. B1		Roaming current account application form.
Ex.B2	05.07.2006	Partnership letter.
Ex.B3	01.04.2003	Partnership deed.
Ex.B4		RBI guidelines.

 

 

MEMBER I                           MEMBER II                     PRESIDENT