BISHAMBER LAL NARANG vs Bank of India

THIS order seeks to dispose of preliminary objec- tions raised by opposite party Nos. 1 to 11 in this complaint. The complainant is proprietor/ partner in four firms, is carrying on his principal business in Subzi Mandi in Azadpur area deal- ing in potatoes and onions. He had four current accounts in the name of various firms with the Azadpur Branch of Bank of India, OP-1. The fifth account held by him was his Saving Fund Ac- count. Out of the current accounts, two accounts and the saving fund account were opened in 1982, another current account in 1985 and the last one in 1990. The complainant states that he has a fundamental right to keep his accounts in the aforesaid bank and the bank cannot object to accepting currency notes of small denomination. His main grievance is that on certain dates he or his representative went to deposit money comprising notes of Rs. 5,10,20 and 50/-. The various officers, who were required to deal with the deposit, declined to do so. They also declined to receive a number of notes on the ground that they were torn or otherwise not acceptable. His complaint to senior officers, including the Manager, produced no result. Infect he was told to do his worst and that ultimately his accounts were closed. THIS has resulted in running his business. He prayed that the OPs be asked to explain as to on what grounds they have closed his accounts. He also seeks directions that his five accounts be opened again and persons who are responsible for contravening the law by closing his account, be punished. The complainant has arrayed besides the Bank, which has been sued through the Chairman of the Head Office at Bombay, the Regional Manager, Accountant-cum-second Manager, Accountant, three dealing Clerks, two Cashiers and a former Manager except the Chairman, by their individual names. Also arrayed as opposite parties are the Reserve Bank of India, and the Union of India in the Ministry of Finance, New Delhi.

A detailed written statement has been filed on behalf of OPs 1 to 11 raising a number of preliminary objections. Separate written statement has been filed on behalf of the Reserve Bank of India, OP-12. It has been stated therein that while performing its statutory functions under the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 or the Reserve Bank of India Act 1934, the RBI was not rendering any banking service and there was no element of hiring of any service. Reliance was placed on a decision of the National Commission in Virender Prasad v. R.B.I. & Ors., I (1991) CPJ 336 (NC) in which it was laid down that while acting in the exercise of its statutory functions, the RBI could not be said to be rendering any banking service nor was there any element for hiring of service which was a sine qua non for attracting the definition of the expression ''consumer'' contained in Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P. Act. It was also stated that in an earlier Complaint No. 470/92 filed by the complainant, he had made an application dated 19.11.93 for impleading the RBI as the OP. That application was dismissed by this Commission. However, the complainant was called to RBI, Zonal Office and was heard by senior officers at length. On behalf of the bank concerned it was stated that the complainant was in the habit of making complaints with a view to harassing the Branch Officials. Both the sides i.e. the complainant on the one hand and the Bank of India, Azadpur Branch on the other hand, had their own allegations and counter allegations. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed against the RBI with costs. The first preliminary objection taken by OPs 1 to 11 is that the present complaint is barred by the principle of res-judicata. It has been stated that earlier the complaint had filed an identical complaint which was registered as C-470/92. That complaint was disposed off by a speaking order dated 1.6.94, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure ''A'' with the written version of the aforesaid OPs. It was held that the complainant''s account has not been dosed for the reasons alleged by him in the complaint. The order Annexure ''A'' dated 1.6.94 was passed after hearing Counsel for the aforesaid OPs and without hearing the complainant who appears to have failed to attend when the complaint was called on for hearing. The complainant, thereafter, moved an application dated 1.7.94 for rehearing the matter and also the present complaint which was registered as Complaint No. 140/94 on 9.6.94. No case for re-opening the matter has been made out. This Commission has no power of review. If the complainant felt aggrieved by the order dated 1.6.94 passed by this Commission his remedy lay in taking the matter to the National Commission. This the complainant has failed to do. The present complaint is, thus, barred on the principle of res-judicata.

The second objection is that the reliefs claimed by the complainant lie beyond the scope of Section 14 of the C.P. Act. To recapitulate the reliefs claimed were that the OPs be asked (a) as to on what authority they had closed the complainant''s bank account, (b) direction be given to OPs to re-open the said five accounts and let the complainant operate the same, and (c) that OPs 1 to 11 be punished for treating the bank as their private property. He also asserted his right to implead RBI as a party in the complaint. On a careful consideration we do not think that the reliefs claimed in the complaint would fall within the ambit of Sub-clause (e) of Section 14(1) of the C.P. Act. The complaint, therefore, deserves to fail on this ground as well.

THE next objection raised is that the complainant had impleaded OPs 2 to 12 by name. THE aforesaid persons were employees of the bank. THEy were liable to be transferred from time to time and impleading them by name would result in great hardship to them. Impleading of officers/officials by name was deprecated by National Commission in Branch Officer, LIC v. Smt. Kanchanben H. Shah, II (1994) CPJ 62 (NC). THE present case is fully covered by the above observations of the National Commission and we, therefore, delete OP Nos. 2 to 11 from the array of OPs. With regard to impleading the RBI as OP-12, we may point out that by an order (Annexure B) dated 21.2.94 passed by this Commission in the course of the earlier Complaint C-470/92, it was held that the RBI was not a necessary party and could not, therefore, be impleaded. Regardless of that order, the complainant has impleaded the RBI as OP-12. This is an abuse of the process of the Court. Moreover, the law with regard to impleading of the Reserve Bank of India stands settled in Virender Prasad''s case (supra) and by performance of its statutory functions the RBI could not be deemed to be running for banking service and there was no element of hiring of any service within the meaning of C.P. Act. For these reasons there can be no doubt that the complainant has dragged the RBI without any justification whatsoever and he must be burdened with adequate costs on this count.

THE next objection is that the nature of allegations which have been expressly denied/ controverted as such that several disputed questions of fact have arisen. THE Commission is not required to go into those questions and the remedy, if any, to which the complainant may be relegated is by a regular suit, if so advised. We find merit in this objection as well. Before concluding, we may refer to the plea raised by the aforesaid OPs that the conduct of the complainant was such that about 110 cheques issued by him were dishonoured for want of adequate balance during a short period of about three months from 1.6.93 to 9.9.93. We may also refer to M.L. Tannan, who, in his well-known book, Banking Law and Practice in India, has dealt with the question of right to close the account in Chapter 11 at page 346 under the heading ''Closing an Account''. He has stated as under:- "(I) Right to close the Account.-Just as a customer has the right to discontinue his dealings and close his account with a particular banker, the latter also has the right to say, whether or not, he would like to continue to have a particular person as his customer. A customer may close his account, (1) if he is not agreeable to the terms such as the rate of interest and the bank charges, (2) if he cannot get such facilities as are offered to him by some other banker, or (3) when his confidence in the bank is shaken. The bank may be unwilling to continue to act as banker to a particular person, because it finds that the person is no longer a desirable customer, e.g., when he convicted of forging cheques or bills, or if he is in the habit of drawing cheques without providing the necessary funds for meeting them, or because his account is not a paying one."

(emphasis supplied) At page 347 under the sub-heading ''Undesirable and Obstinate Customer'' the author goes on go to state that when a customer fails to close his account even after the expiry of the reasonable notice given to him, the banker can close his account by returning the amount at his credit and asking him to return the unused cheque forms supplied to him. We agree with the aforesaid statement of the author and for these reasons we dismiss the Complaint C-142 /94 as well as the miscellaneous application made on 1.7.94 with Rs. 2,500/- as costs to the two sets of OPs each namely OP Nos. 1 to 11 on the one hand and OP No. 12 on the other hand. A copy of this order be communicated to the parties. Complaint dismissed with costs.