The introduction of MICR cheques and the charges for their issuance fell within the realm of pricing for banking services and were necessary for the modernization of banking operations.

1. The appellant before us, having a current account with respondent No. 1-Canara Bank, took exception to the charging by the Bank a sum of Rs. 50/- for issuance of 50 leaves of MICR cheques. The main ground for the grievance was that this amount had not been charged earlier for issuance of cheque book, but the same has been introduced without any prior information and consent of the appellant. It amounted to unilateral action on the part of the respondent-Bank.

2. The appellant approached the Bombay Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and Bombay Suburban District (in short ‘the District Forum’) with the aforesaid complaint. The District Forum allowed the petition preferred by the appellant, holding that the Bank was not justified in recovering the charges for supply of leaf of cheques as it could not be done unilaterally without the consent of the customer. It has also been observed by the District Forum that no data was provided by the Bank to indicate the cost it incurs in obtaining such cheque books. It was also found that such a charge as imposed by the Bank was detrimental to the interest of the customer. Ultimately, with such observations, a direction was issued by the District Forum to the Bank to refund the amount of Rs. 50/- or other similar amounts, if charged, from the customer for supply of MICR cheque leaves.

3. The Bank, it appears, approached the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bombay (in short ‘the State Commission’) in appeal. The State Commission found that there was a direction of the Reserve Bank of India (in short ‘the R.B.I.’) to the Banks providing that the Banks would not be charging for clearing of the cheques. The State Commission also repelled the argument seems to be advanced on behalf of the Bank that this charge of Rs. 50/- was being recovered to meet the expenses in printing of the cheques so that the customers may not indiscriminately use the cheques. The appeal was dismissed and the order passed by the District Forum was upheld.

4. The Bank, aggrieved by the order passed by State Commission in appeal, approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (in short ‘the National Commission’). The National Commission held that the charges which the Banks chose to levy, for providing their services by supply of MICR cheques, fell in the realm of pricing. It is on account of consideration for providing banking services. Hence it was not within the jurisdiction of the Forums to go into that question relating to pricing of such services.

With the above observations and findings, the National Commission allowed the revision and set aside the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.

5. The appellant before us, namely, the customer, has urged that the National Commission is not right in holding that it relates to pricing of services rendered by the Bank. The arguments advanced before the District Forum and the State Commission have been reiterated before us. Much stress has been placed on the point that the charge has been unilateral, without consent and against the directives of the R.B.I. We are not impressed by the submission made on behalf of the appellant. The fact which cannot escape notice is that recently there has been a large scale change and improvement in the working and method and manner of functioning of various institutions, including Banks. Very many services, which were not available earlier, have been introduced with the aid of mechanical and technological devices. Introduction of computerisation has its own effect; one of which is introduction of MICR cheques. There is no denying of the fact, from either side, that it facilitates the clearance of the cheques and avoids unduly long time consuming process in cheque clearance, which are issued by the customers within the city or in any other part of the country. Therefore, to say that it was only for the facility of the Bank itself that the MICR was introduced, would not b