STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KERALA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/32/A/200/2013 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD TVM PRESENT ADDRESS - TVM,KERALA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK PRESENT ADDRESS - TVM,KERALA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SRI.B.SUDHEENDRA KUMAR , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. SRI.AJITH KUMAR.D , JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN.K.R , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

KERALA STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD TVM FOR THE RESPONDENT:

THE CHIEF MANAGER, INDIAN BANK DATED: 12/11/2025

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL Nos. 200/2013 and 221/2013 COMMON JUDGMENT DATED: 12.11.2025 (Against the order in C.C.No.221/2008 on the files of DCDRC, Thiruvananthapuram)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA : PRESIDENT KUMAR SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI. K.R. RADHAKRISHNAN : MEMBER APPEAL No.200/2013 APPELLANT:

Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd., Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Managing Director (by Adv. A. Ravindranath and Adv. A.R. Ramesh)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

The Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. S. Sreekumaran Nair)

APPEAL No.221/2013 APPELLANT:

The Chief Manager, M/s Indian Bank, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. S. Sreekumaran Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

M/s Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing & Marketing) Corporation Ltd., Sastha Kripa Office Complex, Sasthamangalam, Thiruvananthapuram (by Adv. A. Ravindranath and Adv. A.R. Ramesh)

COMMON JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. B. SUDHEENDRA KUMAR : PRESIDENT The appellant in Appeal No.200/2013 is the complainant and the appellant in Appeal No. 221/2013 is the opposite party in C.C.No.221/2008 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (for short, ‘the District Commission’).

2. The complainant has got 14 warehouses and 330 retail shops situated in various parts of the State of Kerala. The funds mobilized at various outlets of the complainant Corporation are transacted through designated banks. The opposite party is one of the banks, so designated. Certain branches of the opposite party collected bank charges for the transfer of cheques during the period from 2001-2002 to 2004- 2005. It is contended by the complainant that without considering the standing instructions, certain branches of the opposite party had debited transfer charges/bank charges to the tune of Rs.8,67,598/- during the period from 2001-2002 to 2004-2005. The complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman for refund of charges. The Banking Ombudsman directed to refund the charges for the period from 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. The charges collected during 2001-2002 and 2002-2003 remained unpaid as the Ombudsman did not award any amount for the said period. In the said circumstances, the above complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party.

3. The opposite party filed written version contending that the complainant corporation had current account with various branches of the Indian Bank in Kerala. The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer. The agreement and arrangement regarding the exemption of collection charges alleged by the complainant are denied by the opposite party. There is no standing instruction with regard to the collection charges. The collection charges debited is legal and valid and it was recognised by the Reserve Bank of India and hence it has statutory force.

4. Before the District Commission, PW1 was examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 were marked for the complainant. DW1 was examined for the opposite party. After evaluating the evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite party to refund Rs.8,43,658/- towards the bank charges debited during the period from 2001-2002 to 2002-2003 with a default clause for interest. Aggrieved by the above direction, the opposite party filed Appeal No.221/2013. Since the i