State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr Ganpathi Parmeshwar Kashi & Ors vs Bank Of India on 18 January, 2011
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Complaint Case No. CC/09/162
1. MR GANPATHI PARMESHWAR KASHI & ORS
18 C, MEDOWS HOUSE, 39, NAGINDAS MASTER
ROAD, TAMARIND LANE, FORT, MUMBAI 400 023.
2. Mrs. Veena G. Kashi
18C, Medows House, Tamarind Lane, Fort,
Mumbai 400 023.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. BANK OF INDIA
Throrugh its Chairman, BANDRA KURLA
COMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 500 051.
2. The Cheif Manager, Bank Of India
Depository Participant Office, Mumbai South
Zone, 70/80, M. G. Road, Mumbai 400 023.
............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER
Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar Member
PRESENT:
Mr.M.S. Roy, Advocate proxy for Mr.S.B. Rao/Mrs.Gauri
S. Rao, Advocate for the complainants.
Ms.Suvarna Joshi,
Advocate for the opponents.
ORDER
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint deals with alleged deficiency in service on the part of opponent (Bank and its officials, hereinafter referred as Bank) for suspending Demat accounts of the complainants and which results into incurring loss by the complainants.
It is the case of the complainants that they being the husband and wife have two joint saving bank accounts with the Bank in their main branch at Mumbai. Said saving bank account was opened in the year 1965. In the year 2009 they got their changed address noted in respect of said account. Previous address was c/o.M.P. Chitale & Co., 10 Ali Chambers, Medows Street, Fort, Mumbai-1, while the new address remained the same except modification of deleting words c/o.M.P. Chitale & Co.. Said change in address was effected consequent to the complainants changed their status from sub-tenant to direct tenant of a landlord pertaining to their office premises. However, it appears that the complainant No.2-Mrs.Veena G. Kashis address, she being a housewife, was recorded at their residential address Flat No.2, Ganesh Krupa, Hingwala Cross Lane, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai-400 077. It is a grievance of the complainants that when they opened two Demat accounts to trade in shares on 07/04/2000, their address noted with the saving bank account, supra, was taken as their address. However, in the month of January 2008, Bank requested the complainants to make certain compliances, particularly, to verify their addresses, submit their identity proofs and resubmitting of copy of PAN Cards, etc. The Bank, on the ground that those compliances were not made, ultimately, put in suspension the complainants Demat accounts and intimated to them accordingly by letter dated 11/01/2008.
Branding such action on the part of the Bank as arbitrary and thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Bank and further claiming that since they could not trade from the suspended Demat accounts, they suffered a loss to the tune of `95,40,350/-, the consumer complaint is filed and compensation is claimed along with interest @ 12% p.a. Following reliefs are claimed by the complainants :-
a. The
Opponents be ordered to pay the Complainants compensation to the tune
of
`95,40,350 (as
per Exhibit K) towards the loss suffered by him upto 31st
March 09 and further loss calculated upto the date of payment with
interest thereon @ 12% p.a.
b.
The Opponents
be ordered to pay the Complainant compensation against failure to activate the demat accounts resulting in loss of reputation and mental agony caused to the complainants.
c.
The Opponents be ordered forthwith to activate the demat account No.10184362 and 10184371 without any further delay and without the Opponents asking for such documents, which have already been submitted and are acceptable as per the NSDL rules.
d.
Cost of the present complaint `50,000/- be awarded.
e.
Any other reliefs for the Complainant, which the Commission deems fit and proper, be passed.
The Bank appeared and resisted the claim as per their written version and submitted that the present consumer complaint would not lie since it does not fall within the ambit of a consumer dispute. They further denied alleged deficiency in service on their part. It is also submitted that as per directions of National Security Depository Ltd. (NSDL in short) and Reserve Bank of India, they were required to ask certain compliances in respect of re-verification of address, PAN Card, etc. and since, complainants failed to fulfill those requirements, ultimately, they were left with no other option, but to suspend their Demat accounts. They also submitted that the transaction in shares being a commercial activity would not fall within the ambit of consumer dispute.
We heard M.S. Roy, Advocate proxy for Mr.S.B. Rao/Mrs.Gauri S. Rao, Advocate for the complainants and Ms.Suvarna Joshi, Advocate for the opponents. Perused the record.
In the instant case, pleadings of the parties which find supports from respective affidavits and correspondence between the parties on record are not in dispute. So, also there is no dispute about the circular on account opening and which is binding on the participant banks, is also not in dispute.
At the first instance, we find that, admittedly, the alleged banking service of Demat accounts of the Bank being hired for the commercial purpose, namely, to trade in shares, the complainants are not consumers. It is not a case of the complainants that they fall within the exception theory. A useful reference on the point made to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Economic Transport Organization v/s. Charan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd., 2010 CTJ 361 (SC)(CP).
Besides that what is claimed in the instant case is the alleged loss suffered by the complainants since they could not trade due to suspension of their Demat accounts. This is in other words, relates to loss or profit from the share business of the complainants. Such subject matter, therefore, cannot fall within the ambit of a consumer dispute.
Besides that, as earlier held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of Unit Trust of India V/s. Sabitridevi Agarwal, II (2000) CPJ 4(NC); the transaction of sale of shares being a speculative transaction would not fall within the ambit of a consumer dispute.
To ask for re-verification of address, PAN Card, etc. is in conformity with the statutory requirements and directions from the controlling authorities i.e. National Security Deposit Ltd. and Reserve Bank of India. The grievance of the complainants is that though their changed address was recorded in their saving bank account, the Bank ought to have accepted the same without asking for further verification for their Demat accounts. We are not impressed by such argument for the simple reason that the Bank was right in their such action of asking for those compliances in view of directions from their controlling authorities, supra, the complainants ought to have complied or again complied with those requirements. Their failure naturally resulted into suspension of Demat accounts and such suspension could have been revoked easily once the compliances were made. Therefore, no deficiency in service on the part of Bank could be alleged.
For the reasons stated above, we find that the consumer complaint deserves to be dismissed and holding accordingly, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Complaint stands dismissed.
2. Complainants to bear their own costs and pay `25,000/- as costs to the opponents.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced Dated 18th January 2011.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Dhanraj Khamatkar] Member dd