Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Presiding Member and Dinesh Singh,Member
Amulya Marketing Agency
Pvt. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. —Respondent
First Appeal No.1135 of 2014
(Against the Order dated 11/06/2014 in Complaint No. 582/1999 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 15.2.2019
Held: The case relates to debits made by the respondent – bank from the complainant co.’s account, allegedly without its prior written instructions / authorization, and crediting them to the accounts of the complainant co.’s sister concerns / their proprietor(s) / partner(s).
The debits in question were made by the bank in 1995-96 and 1996-97 (Rs. 2,95,450/- in 1995-96 and Rs. 6,59,430/- in 1996-97) and credited to the accounts of the complainant co.’s sister concerns / their proprietor/s / partner/s. Mafh’s Creations and Mahf’s International were sister concerns of the complainant co. One director of the complainant co. (Achintya Mukherjee) was a partner in Mafh’s Creations, a sister concern. Another director of the complainant co. (Rukhsana Amin) was the proprietor of Mafh’s International, another sister concern. The debits from the complainant co.’s account were credited to the accounts of its sister concerns / their proprietor/s / partner/s. The first debit was made on 20.04.1995, the last on 05.12.1996. Total number of transactions was 44. It is not as if the bank withheld any amount with itself. The debits from the complainant co.’s account were credited to the accounts of the complainant co.’s sister concerns / their proprietor/s / partner/s. It is also not as if the credits were made to any other third party. The debits relate to the financial years 1995-96 (from 20.04.1995) and 1996-97 (upto 05.12.1996). As stated by the complainant co., it first raised its objection to the debits with the bank in 1998-99 (vide statedly a letter dated 19.08.1998). The bank responded to the objection on 12.03.1999, that is, in the same financial year 1998-99. It is evident that the complainant co. took over 4 years and 8 months from the first debit and more than 3 years from the last debit to raise any objection with the bank. No objection regarding errors in making the debits was raised by the complainant co. during the financial years 1995-96 (from 20.04.1995), 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 (uptil 19.08.1998). Nowhere has it been shown by the complainant co. that while obtaining its periodic or annual statements of account from the bank, it disputed the transactions in question. The complainant is a private limited co. and was required to maintain its balance sheet, profit and loss account, etc., periodically and for each financial year. It was required to file its tax returns for each assessment year. It is difficult to agree that the debits in question went unnoticed while preparing its financial and tax statements each year, year after year.
We may note that objection if any raised within reasonable time of a disputed transaction would have caused the bank to reverse the transaction(s) and remedy the alleged error(s). The first objection, as already stated, was made 4 years and 8 months after the first debit in dispute and 3 years after the last debit in dispute. And the objection was made only and only after the transferred amount had been withdrawn by its sister concerns / their proprietor/s / partner/s and only and only when there was no balance available in the recipient’s accounts to reverse the transactions. There is nothing on record that any criminal or civil action was brought by the complainant co. against its director/s or against its sister concerns or against their proprietor/s / partner/s or against their successor(s)-in-interest / legal heir(s). The sister concerns / their partner/s / proprietor/s have not been made opposite parties to the complaint. Only the bank has been arrayed as an opposite party. In such facts and situation, the question of limitation becomes materially significant and important, especially considering that the bank had by then been left with no opportunity available to reverse the transaction(s) and remedy the alleged error(s). It is also significant that no collusion between the bank and the complainant co.’s sister concerns / their partner/s / proprietor/s has been alleged or shown, as also that no fact or reason has been adduced or brought out for the bank to have whimsically or erratically or wrongly made the transfers in question.
In such facts and situation, the stated reason for condonation of delay in moving the State Commission, that the alleged error(s) came to notice on audit, on receipt of a letter from the auditor, has a decisive ring of untruth and is not acceptable.
The State Commission had dismissed the complaint on limitation. The State Commission’s Order dated 23.04.2014 is well-appraised and well-reasoned. We note in particular the extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission in paras 20 and 21 of its Order, which have been quoted, verbatim, in para 16 above. The State Commission’s Order cannot be faulted.
A bare reading of the salient facts (as succinctly enunciated in paras 24, 25 and 26) shows that, first the complaint, and then the appeal, were (both) filed beyond limitation with clearly evident malafide and mischievous intent. Consumer fora are not meant to be tools for malafide or mischievous endeavours or objectives.
With the above discussion, the appeal is dismissed, both on limitation and on merit, with stern advice of caution to the appellant – complainant co. through imposition of cost of Rs. 1 lakh to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks of the pronouncement of this Order. And the State Commission’s impugned Order is affirmed. (Paras 23 to 29)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
In IA No.2868 of 2019:
For the Appellant: Nemo
Perused I.A. No.2868 of 2019, which is an application dated 09.02.2019 for transferring F.A. No. 1135 of 2014 from this Bench.
The F.A. No. 1135 of 2014 was filed against the impugned Order dated 23.04.2014 of the State Commission.
Arguments were heard on 21.01.2019, and the following Order was passed:
Heard learned counsels for the appellant and the respondent. Perused the material on record.
The first appeal is dismissed, with stern advice of caution to the appellant through imposition of cost of Rs.1 lakh to be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks of the date of pronouncement of the reasoned judgment.
Reasoned judgment to follow.
The F.A. is listed for pronouncement of the reasoned judgment today.
This I.A. has also been placed before this bench today.
The I.A. is patently ill-conceived and mischievous, and is not viewed favourably.
The I.A. is dismissed with stern advice of caution through imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by the applicant with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within four weeks from today.
Let a copy of this Order be sent to the State Commission within ten days by the Registry.
The dispute relates to 1999, we are in 2019.
1. Learned counsels for the appellant – complainant co. and the respondent – bank were heard. The material on record was perused.
2. During arguments on 21.01.2019 the learned counsel for the complainant co. raised an objection that this bench was constituted of non-judicial members and as such was not competent in law to adjudicate the issues.
3. We feel it appropriate to briefly put the question of competence in perspective.
4. Notwithstanding that one of us has a doctorate in law and one of us has a graduate degree in law in the first division, and notwithstanding that one of us has had over five years’ experience in this Commission itself and one of us has had fair experience of court-work including revenue court–work (in which the CPC and the Evidence Act were applicable, civil court jurisdiction was barred, parties were represented through advocates, reasoned judgements were delivered and were subject to scrutiny), the fact is that we are not from the judicial service.
5. But, briefly, we would like to refer to the following:—
Statement of Objects and Reasons
The Consumer Protection Bill, 1986 seeks to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for the purpose, to make provision for the establishment of Consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matter connected therewith.
To provide speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes, a quasi-judicial machinery is sought to be set up at the district, State and Central levels. These quasi-judicial bodies will observe the principles of natural justice and have been empowered to give relief of a specific nature and to award, wherever appropriate, compensation to consumers. Penalties for non-compliance of the orders given by the quasi-judicial bodies have also been provided.
Aims and Object
An Act to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for that purpose to make provision for the establishment of consumer councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumers’ disputes and for matters connected therewith.
Section 20 (1)(b)
The National Commission shall consist of—
(b) not less than four, and not more than such number of members, as may be prescribed, and one of whom shall be a woman, who shall have the following qualifications, namely:—
(i) be not less than thirty-five years of age;
(ii) possess a bachelor’s degree from a recognised university; and
(iii) be persons of ability, integrity and standing and have adequate knowledge and experience of at least ten years in dealing with problems relating to economics, law, commerce, accountancy, industry, public affairs or administration:
Proviso to Section
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
