D.O.F:27/06/2022

                                                                                                     D.O.O:29/09/2023

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD

CC.135/2022

Dated this, the 29^th day of September 2023

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                          : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA.K.G                              : MEMBER

1. Abdulla Madari Katoodi, aged 62 years

S/o Madari

2. Naseema, aged 55 years

W/o Abdulla Madari Katoodi

R/at Hamadolhib Manzil,

Deebar Nagar, Ichilamgod P.O.

Kasaragod.                                                                                  : Complainants

            (Adv: Ummu Aima C.A.)

                                                                        And

South Indian Bank

Obarla KC Building, Ichilangode

Kasaragod, Kerala – 671324

Represented by its Manager.        

(Adv: O. Vinod Kumar)                                                             : Opposite Party

ORDER

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  : PRESIDENT

Complaint filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

            The case of the complainant is that he availed banking service from the opposite party by opening a bank account.  The opposite party collected unreasonable amount for providing SMS service.  SMS service is done against apex bank regulation services.  On 26/03/2022, they have illegally collected Rs.7/-.  It worried the complainant and opposite party is liable to compensate for mental sufferings.  The complainant is entitled to damages.  Complainant sought Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation.

            The opposite party filed written version admitting that complainant opened an SB account with opposite party bank in the Joint name of complainant and Naseema.  Other averments are denied.  The complainant duly signed the account opening form by subscribing SMS banking service.  Bank was then charging Rs.89/- includes GST towards SMS charges.  The complainant did not seek any relief against the bank.  GST was charged due to treasury charges and such other facility.

            The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross-examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the pass book and Ext.A2 is the RBI circular marked from his side.  The opposite party produced Ext.B1 to B5.  Ext.B1 is the account opening form, Ext.B2 is the account statement, Ext.B3 is the account summary, Ext.B4 is the partnership declaration between the complainant and opposite party, Ext.B5 is the details of SMS facility. 

On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following points arised for consideration:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service, negligence or unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party by collecting SMS charges.
2. Whether complainant is entitled to any compensation?  If so, for what reliefs?

All the points are discussed together for convenience.

The basic question is whether banks to charge customers for transaction SMS alerts on the basis of usage, instead of imposing a fixed fee to ensure and be reasonable.

Banks are advised to leverage the technology available with them and the telecom service providers to ensure that such (SMS) charges are levied on usage basis.  Banks were advised to identify basic banking service on the basis of board parameters indicated by the working group constituted by RBI of India for the purpose and the principle to be adopted/followed by them for ensuring reasonableness in fixing and banks have accordingly put a place or system of SMS alerts.  So as to help customers in fraud mitigation and have been levying uniform service charges to various categories of customers.

The complainant is examined as PW1.  He deposed that he did not inspect documents produced by opposite party.  He is not able to say contents of the affidavit.  He admits availing of loan and denied suggestion that complaint is filed due to recovery proceeding. 

From the pleadings and evidence, complainant is not able to prove that bank are not entitled to collect charges for SMS alerts sent by the bank to its customers.  On the other hand, bank are putting its customers on alerts in fraud mitigation and they are entitled to levy uniform charges to various categories of customers.

Collecting of charges for providing service within the parameters of RBI Circular by banks in accordance with request for service and agreeing to pay service charges in accordance with banking practices is not deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and hence there is no deficiency in service rendered by bank or in collecting the charges.  Thus complainant is not entitled to any compensation claimed in the case. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

          Sd/-                                                                                                              Sd/-

     MEMBER                                                                                                 PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1 - Passbook

A2 - RBI circular

B1 - Account opening form

B2 - Account statement

B3 - Account summary

B4 - Partnership declaration

B5 - Details of SMS facility

Witness cross-examined

PW1 - Abdulla Madari

     Sd/-                                                                                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

JJ/