Back
2012(2) CPR 5 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Union Bank of India —Appellant
versus
Manoj Gupta and Vipin Gupta —Respondents
First Appeal No. 16 of 2012
Decided on 27.3.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants :Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Act of not supplying statement of accounts for each FD account to Complainants amounts to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g), 2(1)(o), 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Fixed Deposit—Full FDR money not released on ground that same was pledged on account of bank guarantees issued by bank on behalf of firm—Complaint allowed by State Commission with direction to release principal amount alongwith interest and compensation of Rs. 50,000—Complaint petition specifically alleged that act of not supplying statements of each account separately to Complainants and act of not releasing total balance amount in favour of Complainants within reasonable time by OPs since date of receipt of succession certificate amounts to deficiency in service—No explanation why bank did not give full account in this behalf to Complainants, despite specific and repeated requests—Act of not supplying statement of accounts for each FD account to Complainants and act of not releasing amount without revealing any details by bank as alleged security, clearly amounts to deficiency in service—Appeal dismissed. Paras 8 to 13)
Vinay Kumar, Member—In this appeal, the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT of Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2011, has been challenged. The two Complainants are sons of late A.L. Gupta , who was the sole proprietor of M/s. George Printing Works, Manimajra, Chandigarh. After his death in 2006, the Complainants requested the OP/Union Bank of India to release funds of the order over Rs.19 lakhs lying in FDRs. In order to meet the requirement of the Bank, the Complainants also obtained a succession certificate from the Civil Court on 15.3.2011. The matter was pursued with the Bank, but other than Rs.26370/- to each Complainant, the rest of the money in the FDRs was not released. It was claimed by the OP/Bank that the same was pledged on account of bank guarantees issued by the bank on behalf of the firm. Therefore, the Consumer Complaint was filed in the State Commission on 8.6.2011.
2. In the order now impugned before us, the State Commission allowed the complaint with the following directions—
a) “The OPs shall release the principal amount alongwith interest, as applicable with respect to all the FDRs/STDs, in favour of the complainants as on 16.3.2011, minus the amount already paid
b) The OPs shall supply the statement of account with respect to each FDR/STD to the complainants since its deposit till 16.3.2011.
c) The OPs shall pay interest on the due amount @ 12% per annum since 17.3.2011 till its actual payment to the complainants.
d) The OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.1,500/-, deducted as Advocate’s fee, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 16.4.2011 till the amount is paid back to the complainants.
e) Since the OPs have harassed the complainants and did not release the amount promptly, thereby causing them mental tension and harassment, the OPs shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
The above referred amounts, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-, shall be paid to the complainants within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12 per annum w.e.f. the date of this order till the payment is actually made to the complainants.”
3. As detailed in the complaint petition, the entire amount of Rs.19.09 lakhs was in thirteen different accounts for which details were sought from OP, but not supplied. It is alleged that both these acts of non-supply of accounts and non-release of the funds, amounted to deficiency in service, on the part of the OP/Union Bank of India.
4. In the written response before the State Commission appellant/Union Bank of India claimed that the FDRs/STD were in the name of M/s. George Printing Works, and in lieu of some of them several bank guarantees were given by the Bank to BSNL on behalf of the firm (M/s. George Printing Works), who were printings directories for BSNL. It was claimed that the entire transaction being commercial in nature, the Complainants could not be treated as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It was also claimed that the amount in FD cannot be released till the bank guarantees are got returned or discharged from the BSNL.
5. It is seen from the written response of the appellant/OP that some new FDRs were made and a few bank guarantees were returned, subsequent to the death of the father of the Complainants in 2006. However, without going into any details of the bank guarantees given as on the date of the Written Response i.e. 28.9.2011, it has been claimed on behalf of the OP/Bank that the FDRs were pledged as security for the bank guarantees.
6. It is claimed by the OPs that the bank guarantees were issued on behalf of the firm, M/s. George Printing Works and therefore, the transactions should be treated as commercial. This argument is not accepted by the State Commission, which has held that the amounts sought by the Complainants were held in FDRs/STDs in the personal name of Shri A.L. Gupta. Even if some bank guarantees
