Nawal Kishore Sharma vs ACCOUNTANT, STATE BANK OF INDIA

THIS is an appeal against the order of the District Forum, Jehanabad dated 18.1.91 holding that the complainant, appellants before us, was not a consumer as per the definition of Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

THE fact of the case have been dealt in Para- 4 of the order of the District Forum. In brief the facts are that the complainant appellant went to the Jehanabad Branch of the State Bank of India to deposit Motor Vehicle Tax which was not accepted by the any Bank functionaries at the lower level and even the Branch Manager failed to help the complainant in this regard. THE complainant write to the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance on which memorial an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Manager, Region IV, Zonal office, State Bank of India, Exhibition Road, Patna, who vide his letter No. 5250, dated 31st July, 1990 communicated the appellant that the Branch''s inability to accept the deposit arose out of the failure of DTO, Jehanabad to open an account with the Bank. THE complainant had insisted for written refusal which wad not given to him and in the consequences which might have followed on account of this deposit having not been made viz seizure of the vehicle, prosecution of the complainant/appellant for no fault of his the appellant had no defence in want of the written refusal. Under the Motor Vehicle Act the complainant claims a compensation of Rs. 1,000/- on account of the deficiency in the Banking Service of the Respondent No. 1 & 2 causing fear and agony to the complainant as also a sum of Rs. 50/- as costs for the correspondence. In the appeal before us the appellant argued that the every branch of the State Bank of India is bound to accept the deposit as an Agent for collection of the Motor Vehicle Tax under the order of the Reserve Bank of India. Theoretical position that every branch has to act as Agent for the Transport Department to open its account with the Branches of the State Bank of India for it to foundation. In the instant case no account of the District Transport Authority was opened with the Jehanabad Branch of the State Bank of India. In this circumstances the refusal of the Branch to accept the deposit on-behalf of the Transport Department is understandable. Moreover he does not seem to have any account with the State Bank. There is, therefore, force in the finding of the District Forum that the complainant is not a consumer under the Act. Neither any goods were purchased nor any services of the State Bank of India, Jehanabad were hired for consideration by the complainant.

Under the circumstances we do not see any reason to interefere with the findings of the District Forum that the complaint is not maintainable, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. In the result, therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.