Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/22/413

SUDHIR AIREN - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

MS.GURNEET CHAWLA

22 Dec 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 413 OF 2022

(Arising out of order dated 28.04.2022 passed in C.C.No.673/2019 by District Commission, Indore-1)

 

SUDHIR AIREN,

S/O LATE SHRI HARICHAND AIREN,

R/O SUVEEDHA PETROL PUMP,

566/1, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) -452 001.                                             … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

STATE BANK OF INDIA,

BRANCH-Y.N.ROAD,

5, YESHWANT NIWAS ROAD,

INDORE (M.P.)-452 001                                                                              …. RESPONDENT.   

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri R. S. Chhabra, learned counsel for appellant.

           None for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 22.12.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

           

                   This is an appeal by the complainant/appellant against the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Indore-1 (for short ‘District Commission) in C.C.No.673/2019 whereby the complaint filed by him has been dismissed.

2.                The brief facts of the case as stated by the complainant in his complaint are that for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-

-2-

employment he is running a Suveedha Petrol Pump and is having current account no.53013520976 with the opposite party bank State Bank of Indore which from 28.07.2010 has been merged in State Bank of India. It is alleged that since 2007 the opposite party bank started deducting cash handling charges and at his request stopped deduction of cash handling charges from the complainant’s account. The opposite party-bank again started levying ‘cash handling charges’ from 07.02.2018. The complainant protested against the said charges vide letter dated 21.02.2018 and reminder dated 09.03.2018. However, when the bank did not consider his request, he approached the Banking Ombudsman as also the Deputy Secretary, Reserve Bank of India.

3.                It is further submitted that the opposite party issued a letter dated 04.05.2019 to the complainant stating therein that cash handling charges are applicable from 01.04.2019 to all customers and the only way to save such charges to covert or open new account variant namely Regular, Gold, Diamond and Platinum. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party bank has filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking refund of

Rs.38,947.58/- the amount deducted under the head of ‘Cash Handling Charges’ along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs Rs.15,000/-

 

-3-

4.                The opposite party –bank while filing reply to the complaint before the District Commission raised preliminary objection that the account is not in the name of the complainant and therefore, the complainant is not their consumer. The opposite party-bank is charging cash handling charges and service charges from all the customers having current account from 2018 of which intimation was publicly given on bank’s portal, website and to the customers by the concerning branch officials. Earlier the facility for non-deduction of cash handling charges was given to the complainant as per regulations thereafter again it was started as per RBI directions, of which intimation has already been given to the complainant, therefore, the bank has not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed as complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the impugned order of District Commission is contrary to the facts on record and circumstances of the case and hence it is liable to be dismissed. The District Commission erred in interpreting the relevant guidelines regarding cash handling charges issued by Reserve Bank of India. The District Commission

erred in considering the circular filed by the opposite party-bank as the said circular is not with respect to deductions of cash handling charges. The

-4-

District Commission erred in not considering the question involved in the matter as to whether the bank can introduce any such charges against the guidelines/instructions mentioned in the master circular of the Reserve Bank of India. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.    

7.                It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having current bank account with the opposite party-bank and the bank used to deduct cash handling charges time to time from the complainant’s account.

8.                The complainant has filed his affidavit and documents C-1 to C-13 in support of his complaint before the District Commission. The opposite party-bank has also filed affidavit of Shri Devendra Gangrade, Branch Manager along with two documents i.e. circular issued as per RBI guidelines/instructions.

9.                We find that there is a letter dated 04.05.2019 (C-8) of the opposite party bank addressed to complainant regarding cash handling charges waiver-Suveedha Petrol Pump (53013520976) in which it has been specifically stated that “cash handling charges are applicable from 01.04.2019 to all customers. Earlier concession have since been withdrawn as there is no Authority Structure for waiver of these charges at present. The only way to save cash handling charges is to covert/open new account in new variant where cash handling charges are levied keeping in view the

-5-

Monthly Average Balance in the account. Again there is a letter dated 23.07.2019 (C-9) stating the same thing as has been mentioned in the earlier letter. The complainant has challenged these letters.

10.              The opposite party-bank in its reply affidavit and in pleadings has clearly stated that the bank levied cash handling charges and service charges as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the bank has duly intimated about it to the complainant. We find that the bank has to function under the guidelines/instructions and directives issued time to time by the Reserve Bank of India. The Branch Manager in his affidavit has clearly stated that the cash handling charges levied upon the complainant in view of RBI Circular Dated May, 23 2019 RBI/2018-19/186 DCM(Plg) No.2845/10.25.007/2018-19 and in view of circular of Chief General Manager (Operations) SBI R&DB/BOD-BO/75/2019-20 dated 1 Oct 2019. We have gone through the above circulars and we find that in the circular dated 1 Oct 2019 it is specifically mention that:

  “With the advent of new services/facilities and with a view to bring uniformity in service charges across different segments, a need was felt to revisit the same. Accordingly, all service charges (excluding the service charges on Loans and Advances) have been approved by the Competent authority and applicable w.e.f.1^st October, 2019. Schedule of revised service charges was displayed on the Bank’s website on 30^th August, 2019 for public viewing.”

                  In a supplement annexed with it directions were given in clause 30 regarding Cash Handling Charges.

-6-

11.              The complainant failed to controvert the affidavit of the branch manager as also that the circulars so referred by the bank not issued by the RBI or Head Office of SBI and are not in existence. The complainant as also learned counsel for the complainant/appellant relied upon the Clause 5.9 of RBI’s Master Circular on Customer Services in Banks no. DBOD No. Leg. BC 18/09.07.2006/2011-12 dated July 01, 2011 (C-10) which was revised in the year 2015-16 reads thus:

5.9 Acceptance of cash over the counter

Some banks have introduced certain products whereby the   customers are not allowed to deposit cash over the counters and also have incorporated a clause in the terms and conditions that cash deposits, if any, are required to be done through ATMs.

Banking, by definition, means acceptance of deposits of money from the public for the purpose of lending and investment. As such, banks cannot design any product which is not in tune with the basic tenets of banking.  Further, incorporating such clauses in the terms and conditions which restrict deposit of cash over the counters also amounts to unfair trade practice.

Banks are, therefore, advised to ensure that their branches invariably accept cash over the counters.  Further, they are also advised to refrain from incorporating clauses in the terms and conditions which restrict deposit of cash over the counters.

 

On bare perusal of the same we find that it nowhere deals regarding cash handling charges.

12.              Thus we find no force in the submission of learned counsel for the complainant/appellant that the District Commission erred in interpreting the relevant guidelines regarding cash handling charges issued by Reserve Bank of India as also the District Commission erred in considering the

 

-7-

circular filed by the opposite party-bank as the said circular is not with respect to deductions of cash handling charges. The circular filed by the opposite party bank pertains to cash handling charges and in the present matter the dispute is regarding Cash Handling Charges and not that whether can bank introduce any such charges.  In the present matter the bank has charged Cash Handling Charges as per guidelines/instructions/directives issued by the RBI.

13.              In view of the above, we are of a considered view that the guidelines/instructions/directives of RBI are binding on all the banks and this is a policy decision which is binding on all the banks. This Commission has no constitutional power to set-aside the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India.

14.              Apart, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has nowhere given any evidence or example of discrimination that at any instance, the bank has not charged cash handling charges from other similar customers/consumers of the bank who are having establishment similar to complainant and are having current accounts.  If there is such a situation, then also the matter could be referred under unfair trade practice.

 

 

-8-

15.              Therefore, in our considered view this matter is not maintainable before the Consumer Commissions constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.

16.              Thus, we find that the bank has not committed any deficiency in service while charging cash handling charges from the complainant as per guidelines issued by RBI from time to time.

17.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence available on record and has rightly reached to conclusion that the opposite party- bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service against the opposite party-bank. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order and to take a different view in the matter. It is affirmed.

18.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

           

                  (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)