BISHAMBER LAL NARANG Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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/s. R. B. I. and Ors., 1991 1 CPJ 336 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 Sec.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.

(3.) 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.