NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain,Presiding Member
National Small Industries
Corp. Ltd. —Complainant
Versus
Punjab National Bank —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No. 35 of 2002
Decided on 21.7.2020

IMPORTANT POINT
Complicated questions in respect of consumer disputes are answerable within ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Headnote:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Banking – Complaint against opposite party for deficiency in service and for crediting amount of LCs to account of complainant – Before amendment of 2001, all kinds of services and all kinds of entities availing these services were covered under Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Lapse had happened on part of opposite party bank only and complainant did not want any relief from State Bank of India or BMPL in this regard – Therefore, State Bank of India or BMPL cannot be considered as necessary party for present complaint and complaint does not suffer from any defect of non-joinder of necessary parties – Issue is quite simple and it relates to deficiency in service on part of opposite party for loss of 27 LCs – Basic facts are admitted by both parties that LCs were received by opposite party and same were lost in transit by courier company – There is no dispute in respect of facts – Consumer protection law is also now distinctly established and complicated questions in respect of consumer disputes are answerable within ambit of Consumer Protection Act 1986 – Questions of facts and law involved in present matter are answerable with help of pleadings and evidence available on record – Opposite party bank is guilty of deficiency in service in respect of loss of 27 LCs – Payment has to come from BMPL though complainant has suffered due to loss of LCs by bank and complainant had to take multipronged steps including litigation to recover amounts involved in LCs from BMPL which definitely involved money and time on part of complainant – Complainant may not be entitled under this complaint to get amount involved in lost LCs, however, complainant is definitely entitled to a compensation that should be commensurate with sufferings that complainant had to undergo in terms of pursuing various legal cases at different Fora – As bank is not found liable to pay amounts involved in lost LCs, it does not matter whether list of 27 LCs included some LCs which were either expired or were expiring on day of presentation – Even those LCs have been lost which were valid for collection of amounts – Opposite party bank directed to pay consolidated compensation of Rs.12 lakhs for this deficiency in service to complainant.

Held: Coming to the objection of the opposite party that the complainant is not a consumer, the learned counsel for the complainant stated that the amendment in respect of the service came in the year 2003 and the present complaint was filed in the year 2001, therefore, the objection of the opposite party was not valid. Before this amendment, all kinds of services and all kinds of entities availing these services were covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Coming to the question of State Bank of India and BMPL not being made the parties in the present complaint case, it is seen that the lapse had happened on the part of the opposite party bank only and the complainant did not want any relief from the State Bank of India or BMPL in this regard, therefore, the State Bank of India or BMPL cannot be considered as necessary party for the present complaint. Consequently, the complaint does not suffer from any defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.

I also do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the present matter involves complicated questions of facts and law and therefore, this Commission does not have the competence to decide the complaint and the same should be relegated to a civil court. In fact, the issue is quite simple and it relates to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for the loss of 27 LCs. The basic facts are admitted by both the parties that the LCs were received by the opposite party and the same were lost in transit by the courier company. Thus, there is no dispute in respect of the facts. The consumer protection law is also now distinctly established and the complicated questions in respect of the consumer disputes are answerable within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.The learned counsel for the opposite party has not referred to any complicated question of law in their arguments. Thus, the questions of facts and law involved in the present matter are answerable with the help of pleadings and evidence available on record. In taking this view, I am supported by the judgment of this commission in The Tax Publisher Vs. Chairman & Managing Director, UCO Bank and ors., FA No.106 of 2014, decided on 31.08.2017 (NC) wherein the following has been observed:-

“12. In CCI Chambers Coop. Hsg. Society Ltd. (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court highlighted the same principle as enunciated in Dr. J.J. Merchant (supra) to determine the question whether adjudication on the issue arising in the Complaint require a detailed and complicated investigation of facts, incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner. It was observed that the decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision – the anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a Forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of detailed and complicated method of recording evidence.

13. It is thus, well settled that the procedure prescribed under the Act for disposal of the Complaint is adequate to decide cases involving complicated questions of the law and fact as well albeit, the issues which, in the opinion of a Consumer Fora, cannot be decided without lengthy evidence, not envisioned under Section 13 of the Act.”

The opposite party has also informed that a summary suit was filed by the complainant for recovery of the amount from BMPL before the Hon’ble High Court of Mumbai and there was another agreement signed between BMPL and the complainant in the year 1999 safeguarding the interests of the complainant wherein a promissory note was executed by the BMPL for an amount of Rs.2,83,70,700/-. Thus the complainant has already safeguarded it’s due amounts including that involved in the subject LCs. Thus, the complainant has not suffered any loss due to loss of the LCs in transit. It is true that the complainant should have disclosed all these legal cases in the complaint or in subsequent pleadings, however, the fact is that the opposite party bank has not confirmed whether the complainant has received the payments from BMPL, rather, it has been mentioned in the written arguments that the two cheques which were taken by the complainant after the new agreement have bounced when they were presented for realization by the complainant. One thing is clear that the payment has to come from BMPL though the complainant has suffered due to loss of LCs by the bank and the complainant had to take multipronged steps including litigation to recover the amounts involved in the LCs from the BMPL which definitely involved money and time on the part of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant may not be entitled under this complaint to get the amount involved in the lost LCs, however, the complainant is definitely entitled to a compensation that should be commensurate with the sufferings that the complainant had to undergo in terms of pursuing various legal cases at different fora. At this juncture it is to be noted that when this Commission earlier passed the final order dated 9th August 2011 by directing the opposite party bank to pay Rs.6,00,000/-to the complainant, the complainant did not prefer any appeal against that order which indicates that the complainant was not expecting order in respect of the amount of the lost LCs. It means that either the amount of lost LCs has been recovered by the complainant or different proceedings are on for the same.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the opposite party bank is guilty of deficiency in service in respect of the loss of the 27 LCs. As bank is not found liable to pay the amounts involved in the lost LCs, it does not matter whether the list of 27 LCs included some LCs which were either expired or were expiring on the day of presentation. Even those LCs have been lost which were valid for collection of amounts.

On the basis of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party bank is held guilty of deficiency in service for loss of 27 LCs. The opposite party bank is directed to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.12 lakhs ( rupees twelve lakhs only) for this deficiency in service to the complainant. This order be complied by the opposite party bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the opposite party bank will pay this amount along with interest @7% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

(Paras 5, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20)

Result: Complaint Partly allowed.