Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member, Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. & Anr. —Appellants
versus
Jaspal Kaur Sandhu —Respondent
First Appeal No.742 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 3.5.2012 in Complaint No. 82/2010 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 9.12.2015
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:Mr. Fanish K. Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sudarshan Goel, Advocate with Ms. Rupinder Kaur, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Executing court cannot go beyond decree as well as spirit of order.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Deficiency in service—Unauthorised withdrawal from account—State Commission allowed complaint with costs of Rs.10,000/-—Executing court cannot go beyond decree as well as spirit of order—Findings given by State Commission in operative portion are not in conformity with its own order—While deciding execution petition, State Commission could not change nature and spirit of order passed in original complaint—By passing new directions in execution petition, State Commission has committed grave error and illegality—Respondent herself in complaint filed before the State Commission, has sought directions for withdrawal of sum of Rs.83.10 lacs only—However, in execution proceedings State Commission enhanced that amount to Rs.1.33 Crores which were never not claimed by respondent—State Commission committed grave illegality in passing impugned order—Impugned order set aside—However, respondent can get order passed in original complaint executed in accordance with provisions of law. (Paras 11 to 16)
Result: Appeal disposed of with observations.
Appellants/Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, being aggrieved by impugned order dated 26.9.2012, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (for short, ‘State Commission’) in Execution Application No.10 of 2012 in (Consumer Complaint No.82 of 2010) have filed the present appeal.
2. Brief facts are that Respondent/Complainant has filed a consumer complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘Act’) against appellants, stating that she was having Saving Bank Account in the Appellants’ Bank. On 26.5.2010, she collected her accounts statement from the bank. On comparison of the entries made in the pass book and statement of account, she found that some amounts have been withdrawn from her account, without her knowledge and consent. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the appellants she filed the complaint seeking following reliefs;
“It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint may kindly be allowed and necessary directions be issued to the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 83 lacs & 10 thousand with interest @ 15% per month from the day the amount was withdrawn from her account and till the amount is paid. She may also be allowed necessary damages/compensation for causing tension and stress by withdrawing the amount illegally from her Saving Bank Account. Respondents No.3 and 4 be directed to pay to the complainant the amounts of Kotak Retirement Insurance Plan to the complainant on maturity after the expiry of period of 3 years from the date of commencement. Complainant may also be granted the cost of the mental agony and harassment and litigation costs.”
3. Appellants contested the complaint and denied any deficiency on their part.
4. The State Commission vide order dated 3.5.2012, allowed the complaint with costs of Rs.10,000 and passed following directions;
“The respondent Bank is directed to credit an amount of Rs.83.10 lakh in the account of the complainant as was coming in her account with due information to the complainant.
60. The respondent Bank would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amounts withdrawn from the account of the complainant from the date of withdrawals till the date of payment of those amounts to the complainant.
61. The bank respondent No.2 would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.45,00,000 from the account of the complainant and credit the same in the account of Navdeep Kaur daughter of the complainant.
62. The Bank respondent No.2 would be at liberty to withdraw the amount of Rs.35,000 and Rs.1,75,000 from the account of Navdeep Kaur daughter of the complainant and the respondent Bank would also be at liberty to withdraw the amount from the Kotak Life Insurance respondent No.3 and 4 for which the complainant had allegedly taken the life insurance policies etc. from respondents No.3 and 4.
63. If the aforesaid amount is not credited to the account of the complainant within a period of two months after the receipt of a copy of this order, respondent No.2 Bank would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from today till the amount is credited in the account of the complainant.”
5. The above order of the State Commission has attained finality, since it was never challenged by either of the parties.
6. Later on, respondent filed Petition dated 24.7.2012 under Section 27 of the Act before the State Commission, alleging that appellants have mis-interpreted and misunderstood the order of the State Commission and have not correctly deposited the amounts in the account of respondent and wrongly withdrew certain amounts and prayed that appellants;
“Be directed to deposit a sum of Rs.75,80,857 including interest upto 16.7.2012 and they may be further directed to pay 12% interest on this amount from the date of order dated 3.5.2012 as per the directions of this Hon’ble Commission.”
7. In reply appellants stated, that in terms of order dated 3.5.2012 an amount of Rs.8
