UCO BANK Vs. AMITA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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?

(3.) Before the District Forum the appellant Bank referred to Sec.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 Sec.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 Sec.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.