State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Limited, Thenkasi Road, ... vs J.Ashok, Proprietor Sri Lakshmi ... on 10 April, 2014
IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: Thiru.A.K. ANNAMALAI, M.A.M.L.,M.Phil., Presiding Judicial Member
Thiru.S. SAMBANDAM, B.Sc, Member
F.A.No.154/2012
(Against the order in C.C.No.82/2005 dated 24.11.2009 on the file of DCDRF,
Virudhunagar @ Srivilliputhur.)
THURSDAY, 10th DAY OF APRIL 2014.
ICICI Bank Limited,
Thenkasi Road,
Rajapalaym,
Represented by its Manager Appellant/Opposite party
Vs
J.Ashok,
Proprietor Sri Lakshmi Enterprises,
No.59, CPPV Complex,
Ristril Road,
Rajapalayam,
Represented by is GPOA,
G.Jaganathan. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for Appellants/Opposite Parties : Mr.S.Namasivayam, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Mr. P.Natarajan,Advocate.
This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 03.04.2014 and on
hearing the arguments the both sides and upon perusing the material records
this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. A.K.ANNAMALAI, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
2
1. The opposite party is the appellant.
2. The complainant having roaming current account with the opposite party from 04.11.2003 and maintaining the same as per the terms and conditions offered by the opposite party and subsequently he came to know that the opposite party has collected Rs.86,134.39 P towards RCA charges and mobile transactions etc., even though the complainant has maintained the minimum balance required for the duration from March 2004 to June 2005 for free mobile transactions those charges were collected which came to be known through the subsequent account statement and thereby after issuing legal notice a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming relief.
3. The District Forum on the basis of both sides' materials and after an enquiry, accepting the contentions of the complainant, allowed the complaint by directing the opposite party to refund of Rs.52,135 with 6% interest for the wrongful collection of RCA charges and Rs.200/- towards mobile bank charges and Rs.1000/- as costs.
4. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/opposite party by filing this appeal contented that the complainant having agreed with terms and conditions of the agreement executed and on that basis when the bank is entitled to collect such charges on the basis for the Gold Scheme Loan, RCA account charges were lawfully collected and thereby there was no deficiency in 3 service and the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint which is to be set aside.
5. We have heard both sides' arguments and careful considered the written arguments and other materials placed before us in this regard. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant having RCA Gold Scheme Loan account with the opposite party in which during the transactions period for 2004- 2005, certain amount to the extent of Rs.86,134.39 P was charged towards RCA charges and for the mobile fund transactions. The complainant contended that those charges were wrongfully collected against the norms and rules, since as per the terms and conditions they have maintained the minimum balance for every quarter and within the limits prescribed by them for which the appellant depending upon the banking rules and agreements under Exs.B1 to B4 which are not disputed.
6. But the complainant filed a memo of calculations by mentioning the details regarding RCA charges and other charges said to have been wrongfully collected and this memo of calculations was considered by District Forum and discussed about the same in its order and as per the calculation of memo, the District Forum came to the conclusion that during those periods disputed the complainant was having maintained minimum balance as required for every quarter and even though the complainant claimed as wrongful collection of Rs.86,134.39 P during the course of arguments and in the written submission they have restricted the same only for Rs.52,135 + Rs.200 towards 4 mobile charges transactions. This memo was not disputed by the opposite party in any way and it is also pointed out that even after closing the account in the year 2005, the opposite party has charged in this regard.
7. The opposite party contented that they have levied charges as per the rules and regulations for the period of shortages of deposit during the quarter and how the shortage was made and for which how the amount was calculated were all not described. In those circumstances, we are of the view that the District Forum by taking into consideration of all the materials from either side came to proper conclusion in this regard. As far as the question of maintainability of the complainant, the opposite party has raised the plea before this commission that the complainant is having account for the purpose of business transactions for commercial purpose and thereby he cannot be considered as a consumer by relying upon the ruling in this regard in case of R.P.No.134/2011 rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 7/4/2011 in which it is held as follows:
"By this admission, the complaint will fall within the exception clause contained in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, as amended in 2002. In terms of this provision, the RP/Complainant does not qualify to be a consumer for the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, in our view, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttrakhand has rightly rejected the Consumer Complaint filed by the Revision Petitioner."5
8. But as far as our case is concerned the appellant/opposite party did not raise this plea before the District Forum and even though such plea could be raised at any stage since this plea was not raised before the District Forum to agitate the same, the complainant was not given chance for the same before the District Forum and thereby we are of the view that this plea cannot be raised at this stage of appeal and the respondent/complainant relied upon the ruling regarding the banks unfair trade practice reported in II (2008) CPJ 271(NC) in which it is held as follows:
" Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2(1)(r), 14(1)(f) - Banking and Financial Services - Unfair trade practice - Bank allured complainants to take loan at fixed rate by pledging Kissan Vikas Patras - Complainants when trapped in, increased rate of interest demanded and Processing Fee deducted unjustifiably - Tactics adopted by Bank amounts to unfair trade practice - Subsequent agreement, after trapping complainants cannot be relied upon - Standardized contracts are pretended contracts - Signatures obtained on dotted lines not really represent substantial agreement with terms in it - Consumer Fora empowered of curing mischief adopted by one of contracting parties - Terms of contract in specified form if unjustified/unilateral, it cannot be termed as intentional contract
- Complainant's signatures taken on printed Form, without explaining terms and conditions - Relying upon flow chart given by Bank, if loan is taken, KVPs pledged, Bank cannot change its stand - Breach of promise amounts to unfair trade practice - Bank directed to discontinue with unfair trade practice."6
9. This ruling can be applicable to the respondent/complainant since the complainant being a company represented by its proprietor having business transactions by way of RCA account to the extent of several lakhs in transactions, it cannot be held that they are not aware of the contract between the bank and complainant. But the very case is that the opposite party had charged the amounts against the terms and conditions as promised and thereby this rule could be taken into account only as a supportive material for the case.
10. In those circumstances and in view of the forgoing discussions and reasons stated above, we are of the view that the appeal fails as devoid of merits. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite party only for refund of RCA charges and mobile bank transaction charges without awarding any compensation and thereby we are of the view that the order of the District Forum is to be upheld by dismissing the appeal.
11. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum, Virudhunagar @ Srivilliputhur, passed in C.C.No.82/2005, dated 24.11.2009.
No order as to costs in this appeal.
S.SAMBANDAM, A.K.ANNAMALAI,
Member. Presiding Judicial Member.
NDEX: YES/NO
AMS/Mdu.Bench/Orders- 2014/Apr.
7