UCO BANK vs AMITA PATEL

UCO Bank has preferred this appeal against the respondents referred above. The respondents preferred a complaint before the District Forum, Narsinghpur alleging deficiency in Bank''s services and claimed Rs. 30,000/- as compensation.

THE appellant Bank in the written statement, inter alia, raised preliminary objection about jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint. THE short point is, whether the District Forum as per definition of Consumer had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? Before the District Forum the appellant Bank referred to Section 50 of Banking Regulations Act and also there provisions of the said regulations. It has also referred to certain directions issued by the R.B.I, being empowerd to issue directions under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulations Act. It has further averred that the complaint does not fall within the definition of "Consumer" as defined in Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as they have not hired any services for consideration; for the operation of the accounts, withdrawal of amounts etc. It is a free service. There was no deficiency in the performance of its duties imposed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Furthermore, it is also not a ''service'' as defined in Sec. 2(i)(o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the contention is that since the bank service is free of charge, i.e. without consideration the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

We have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. We refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case which had to be decided by the learned District Forum. We will strictly confine ourselves to the question whether banking is a "service" and if there is any alleged deficiency complaint under the Act would lie?

"CONSUMER" means, any person who hires any services for consideration. "Service" as defined in Clause (o) of Sub-Section 1 of Sec.2 as inclusive of the provision of facilities, in connection with banking. The appellant Bank is a Nationalised Bank carrying banking business in the country. The Bank while accepting the deposits from the Respondents agree to render various banking services to the complainant. It is common knowledge that even in Savings Bank Accounts interest paid by the bank on the deposit made by any person is certainly less than what the bank charges on the advances made by it to the borrowers. Therefore, the respondents who have deposited the amount with the Bank had hired the bank services for consideration. Thus, the argument that the banking services operating the saving account or for other purpose is a free service is not correct. The respondents before us are consumer as defined in the Act, and they have right to file a complaint if the service rendered by the Bank suffer from deficiency in any way.

IT is a matter of evidence whether in the present case the banking services suffer from any deficiency, but we hold that the District Forum while deciding the preliminary objection about jurisdiction was correct. We are supported in this view by a decision : State Commission Consumer Protection Rajasthan, Jaipur Mahesh Bhandari v. Punjab National Bank reported in Consumer Protection Cases Edition 1991, page 476. Thus there is no jurisdictional error. In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, Narsinghpur on 30.3.92. The District Forum shall proceed with the case according to law. A copy of this order be sent to the appellant and the respondents, and to the District Forum with record of the case. The costs of this appeal will abide by the Final result of the complaint in the District Forum. Appeal dismissed.