IMPORTANT POINT
A person who avails of any service from a Bank will fall under purview of definition of a ‘consumer’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeals arise from two orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission¹ [“NCDRC”] namely (i) an order dated 7 May 2019 by which the NCDRC dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum on the request of the counsel for the appellant and (ii) an order dated 25 July 2019 of the NCDRC dismissing the application for review.

3. The appellant instituted a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission² [“SCDRC”] at Lucknow. The case of the appellant was that he and his father, fourth respondent, opened a joint Fixed Deposit³ [“FD”] account on 7 January 2016, at Agra Branch of the first respondent⁴ [“Respondent bank”]. The FD was in the amount of INR 75 lakhs for a period of 145 days, interest being payable at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The amount of the FD on maturity was INR 77 lakhs. According to the appellant, on 31 May 2016, the appellant and his father jointly gave written instructions to the respondent bank to renew the joint FD for ten days, while retaining the joint mode of operation.

4. On 1 June 2016, appellant’s father travelled to Surat to stay with his other son, the appellant’s elder brother. The appellant alleges that on 2 June 2016, his father submitted a letter to the Manager of the respondent bank at its Adajan Branch, Surat requesting encashment of the entire FD amount of INR 77 lakhs to his (the father’s) individual savings account at Agra. On 3 June 2016, the appellant wrote to the respondent bank with instructions to not transfer the FD amount to any individual bank account. However, contrary to the instructions, the proceeds of the FD were credited to the account of the appellant’s father. On 4 June 2016, the appellant received an email from the respondent bank stating that they had credited INR 77 lakhs to the appellant’s account. However, the appellant alleges that no such amount was credited to his account.

5. The appellant moved a consumer complaint on the allegation that there was a deficiency of service by the respondent bank. The SCDRC, by its judgment dated 24 October 2018, declined to entertain the complaint on the ground that the dispute essentially was between the appellant and his father and did not fulfill the description of a consumer dispute. During the course of its judgment, the SCDRC held that from the statement made by both the parties, it was evident that the amount had been deposited jointly in the name of the appellant and his father for a period of 145 days, the maturity date being 31 May 2016. While the case of the appellant was that upon the maturity of the FD, both the appellant and his father had jointly issued a direction to the bank for renewing it for a period of ten days, the bank claimed that the FD amount was credited to the account of appellant’s father on the request made by the appellant’s father on 31 May 2016. The SCDRC noted the submission of the appellant that since the FD amount was deposited in the joint name of the appellant and his father, it could not be credited solely into the account of the father. The SCDRC was of the view that the dispute was primarily between the appellant and his father on the issue of the FD amount deposited, and therefore only a civil court was competent to deal with such a dispute. Having recorded the rival submissions, the SCDRC relegated the appellant to the remedy of a civil suit before the competent forum.

6. The appellant instituted an appeal against the decision of the SCDRC under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986⁵ [“1986 Act”] (as it was then in operation). The appeal which was filed before the NCDRC was disposed of on 7 May 2019, in terms of the following order:

“After some arguments, counsel for the appellant, upon instructions, seeks to withdraw the present appeal, with liberty to approach the appropriate Forum.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the