ORDER

Complainant/petitioner opened a Joint Account with his wife with IDBI Bank.  They were issued independent ATM Cards valid upto December 2006.  ATM Card issued to the complainant’s wife was

-2-

replaced because it was malfunctioning.  The new card, so issued, was also replaced because it was also malfunctioning but at this time an ATM-cum-Debit Card was issued.  When the complainant came to know that the bank has started levying fee on the said ATM-cum-Debit Card complainant requested the opposite party to issue him an exclusive ATM Card instead of ATM-cum-Debit Card.  Respondents refused to do so stating that the product was out of operation.  Being aggrieved petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the respondents to refund the sum of Rs.110/- collected towards Debit Card charges and pay a compensation of Rs.95,000/-.

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000/- towards compensation within                  six weeks failing which to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of expiry of the stipulated period of six weeks till realization.

          Respondents being aggrieved filed the appeal before the State Commission which has been allowed.  State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum by observing thus:

                   “In the instant case, IDBI Bank who actually issued ATM cum Debit Card and extended the facility to the complainant and his wife, is not a party.  IDBI bank

-3-

itself being the separate and distinct juridic person within the meaning of section 2(1) (m) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ought to have been made a party.  Its ‘Managing Director’ or ‘Chief Executive Officer’ and ‘Manager’ of a branch at Khar (West), certainly, are not one and the same like the bank itself.  Each one of these officials is a separate and distinct juridic person.  They are not ‘service providers’ in relation to which deficiency in service alleged, supra.  When we brought this particular aspect to the notice of respondent/original complainant, he tried to submit that these officials during the trial before the forum did not contest the matter and at no point of time raised any objection that the bank is not a party.  We are afraid whether they raised or not raised such objection is not the issue but such argument now advanced before us in appeal on behalf of the appellant and, basically, this particular issue goes to the root of the matter since the consumer dispute arose between ‘consumer’ and the ‘service provider’ and not with the person who are not ‘service providers’.  Under the circumstances, we cannot support the impugned order.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order:……”

          I agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Grievance of the petitioner was against IDBI Bank.  Admittedly, IDBI Bank was not impleaded as a party respondent.  In the absence of IDBI Bank, the

-4-

complaint could not proceed against the Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of the Bank.  Petitioner did not even move an application to amend the complaint or implead necessary parties.  No ground for interference in the impugned order is made out.  Dismissed.

......................J

ASHOK BHAN

PRESIDENT