2007 (2) CPR 486 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
S.N. Kapoor, Presiding Member and B.K. Taimni, Member
Oriental Bank of Commerce—Petitioner
versus
Raman Mittal—Respondent
Revision Petition No. 3173 of 2005
Decided on 28-5-2007

IMPORTANT POINT
Default under 2nd proviso to Section 15 C.P. Act makes the filing of appeal defective and not time barred. As all rules of procedure are hand maids of justice, delay in their compliance, if any, should not be allowed to prevail in imparting substantial justice.

Headnote:(i)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15 second proviso and 21(b)—Complaint about banking service—Allowed by District Forum—Appeal to State Commission—Filed in time but failure to comply deposit required under 2nd proviso to Section 15—Alleged compliance after 76 days—State Commission dismissed as barred by time—Revision—Whether approach of State commission permissible under law? (No)

       Held: This proviso relates to procedure in entertaining the appeal. The appeals may not be entertained for it would suffer from defects. But it could not be said that appeals though defective had not been filed in time. The above said proviso has to be read in the light of the celebrated observations of the Supreme Court that all rules of procedure are hand maids of justice. These are not cases where by the time the order was passed the compliance had not been made. (Para 14)

       From the recital of the facts of the case of the District Forum as well as from the State Commission, it does not appear at all that the interest was to be paid before the date of maturity and the date of maturity is yet to come for it was 23.5.2007 and 1.6.2007. Thus, the above interest was not clearly payable under the order of the District Forum. As such, firstly there was no non-compliance of the 2nd proviso of Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Secondly, the circumstances indicated that before the actual order of the dismissal, the application for condonation of delay was moved. Since the appeal had already been filed even if there was non-compliance initially and the compliance was made before the dismissal of the complaint. (sic) the State Commission was supposed to consider the matter. We do not think that the technicality should be allowed to prevail to such an extent, that substantial justice should be made to suffer in any manner. In the light of the well known saying that all rules of procedure are hand maids of justice, the appeal should not have been dismissed on this ground and 76 days delay, even if there was initial delay should have been condoned for before the date of the order of dismissal that deficiency had been removed. In the aforesaid circumstances, the plea that there was delay of 76 days could not be condoned, does not appeal at all. It was submitted that the complainant/respondent would suffer financial loss if the delay was condoned. We do not think that this argument should prevail particularly in the light of facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove. One should not be oblivious to the fact that in case this scheme was not prepared, the complainants might not have got the amount of the fixed deposits, leave aside loss of interest, in view of the financial position of the Global Trust Bank as is evident from the narration in the notification of the scheme. In such circumstances, if there was any assumed delay, we condone the same for the aforesaid reasons. (Para 16)

       (ii)Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g) and 21(b)—Complaint against deficiency in Banking Service—FDR with Global Trust Bank @ 9.25% p.a. interest—Merger of Global Trust Bank with OBC—OBC reducing interest to 5.5% p.a. with retrospective effect as per RII rate in scheme in amalgamation—District Forum holding it is a deficiency in service—Awarding interest @ 9.25% p.a. with compensation—Appeal to S.C. dismissed—Revision—Whether interest be paid at 9.25% p.a or 5.5% p.a.—Held: upto date of merger at 9.25% p.a. and thereafter @ 5.5% upto maturity—Revision partly allowed.

       Held: In view of the aforesaid provisions in the scheme, the petitioner was supposed to open a similar Account in the name of respective holders/complainants of the fixed deposit receipts and crediting thereto full amount including interest to the extent payable under the Scheme upto 14th August. 2004 i.e. prescribed date, and in any case not later than three months from the prescribed date. Since the interest could be reduced only with effect from the prescribed date by the transferee bank, the amount of interest is required to be credited in accordance with the provisions of Clause 6 (1) of the Scheme. Thereafter interest became payable at different rates as specified in sub-clause (4) of clause 6 i.e. only “at such rates as the transferee bank normally allows to its own depositors for such accounts.” If the interest was being given @ 5.5% to the depositors of similar fixed deposits of transferee bank for such accounts, there could not be any distinction between rates of interest to be given to different sets of depositors, depositors of transferor bank and depositors of transferee, in terms of sub-clause (4) Clause 6 of the Scheme.

       Consequently, as and when the rate of interest was modified by the Oriental Bank of Commerce which was being normally allowed to its depositors for such accounts, the complainant/respondents would be entitled to get interest at the same enhanced or reduced rate, as was being allowed to its own fixed depositors.

       Since the date of maturity has either come or is about to come in few days with effect from 14th August, 2004, the interest shall be payable in respect of these four FDRs to the depositors of the transferor bank at the prevailing rate(s) of interests as the Oriental Bank of Commerce has allowed to its own depositors for such accounts. OBC is directed to calculate principal and interest accordingly and pay the same on maturity.

       For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, both the revisions are partly allowed in above terms and the parties are left to bear their own costs. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 26)

       Result: Both revisions partly allowed accordingly.