NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Prem Narain, Member
KULWINDER SINGH AND ANR - AppellantsS - Appellants
Versus
STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND ANR - Respondents
First Appeal No. 287 of 2016 (against Order 4.1.2016 in C.C. No. 119 of 2014 of Punjab Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission with IA No. 3200 of 2016) (Condonation of Delay).
Decided on : 08-07-2016
Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellants; None, for the Respondents
The complaint must fall within the definition of 'complaint' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to be covered by its provisions.
Headnote:
Consumer - Deficiency in Services - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(iii) - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and their applicability to the case. It highlighted the definition of 'complaint' under Section 2(1)(c)(iii) and concluded that the complaint was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants provided incorrect date of birth information to the bank, which was then provided to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia. This led to the rejection of their application for student visa and permanent resident status. The complaint was filed before the State Commission, which dismissed it.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appeal was barred by limitation and even on merits, it did not find any substance in the appeal under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It concluded that the complaint itself was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act and granted the appellants liberty to seek remedy in a Civil Court.
Issues: Delay in filing the appeal, applicability of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the rejection of the application for student visa and permanent resident status.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal was barred by limitation and the complaint was not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It also emphasized that the appellants could seek remedy in a Civil Court.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed in limine.
ORDER
Mr. Prem Narain, Member. - This first appeal No. 287 of 2016 has been filed by Mr. Kulwinder Singh & Anr. against the order dated 4.1.2016 in CC No. 119 of 2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short 'the State Commission').
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant No. 2, Hardeep Kaur, wife of Mr .Kulwinder Singh was interested in going to Australia for study and she applied for the same and got admission there. As the proof of sufficient fund to support the couple in Australia, the complainants provided the details of their STDR accounts at the branch of the State Bank of Patiala, village Nathana, Distt. Bathinda, Punjab bearing Account Numbers A/c No. 65105614147 in the name of Mr. Kulwinder Singh and Smt. Hardeep Kaur and A/C No. 65105613824 in the name of Mr. Kulwinder Singh, S/o Santokh Singh. After completion of her two years study course in Australia, the complainant No. 2 applied for further study in Australia. On 1.3.2012, complainant No. 2 filed application for student visa and for permanent resident status to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of the Government of Australia. On 2 3.2012 department asked for evidence of sufficient fund to support their stay in Australia and to meet all the expenses. On 16.3.2012, opposite party No. 1, State Bank of Patiala provided a certificate for these accounts to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia. These accounts were referred to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship Overseas Post. That overseas post contacted the bank. The bank provided the post with the birth dates of the account holders. The date of birth of complainant No. 1, Mr. Kulwinder Singh was provided as 1.1.1972, whereas his actual date of birth is 10.4 1979. Based on this, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia has considered this STDR to be of some other Kulvinder Singh and has not accepted evidence for sufficient funds and based on this, the application for student visa and permanent resident status was rejected by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship of Australia. Because of this rejection of application, complainants suffered loss and therefore, the consumer complaint was filed before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 4.1.20016.
3. Hence the appeal.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants are account holders with the respondent bank and therefore, they come clearly under the definition of Consumer. The respondent bank did not have any information about the date of birth of complainant No. 1, but they gave wrong information and false date of birth of complainant No. 1 to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, Australia. The assertion of the respondent that date of birth was intimated on the basis of voter ID card of complainant No. 1 given at the time of opening of account, cannot be sustained because the voter ID card does not contain the date of birth rather it contains only the age as on a particular date. In this case, the voter ID card deposited with the bank mentions age as on 1.1.2004 as 31 years. Learned Counsel also mentions that another voter ID card was deposited with the respondent against the requirement of KYC norms having the date of birth 1980. It seems that the bank had not updated its record and had sent the information based on the earlier voter ID card.
5. Learned Counsel stated that the main ground for rejection of the application for student visa and permanent resident status was the wrong date of birth of complainant No. 1 supplied by the respondent bank. The State Commission has observed that the application was rejected on many counts and therefore, the deficiency on the part of the respondent was not the only cause of rejection of the application. The learned Counsel argued that even if it contributed partly to the rejection of application, the respondent bank was liable to pay compensation to the appella