Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain,Presiding Member & C. Viswanath, Member
Savita Kom Nataraj Naragund & 4 Ors. —Petitioners
Versus
T. Ishwar & 13 Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition Nos. 307 to 327 of 2020
Decided on 21.7.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A person can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service for a service provided by a bank or a financial institution.
(2) Criminal liability and civil liability are two different aspects of liability. Even if there is no criminal liability, civil liability may remain and can be decided.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)a(d) and 2(1)(o) [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7) and 2(11)] – Consumer complaint – Maintainability – A person can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for deficiency in service for a service provided by a bank or a financial institution – A person availing services of a bank is a consumer and can file a consumer complaint before consumer forum for deficiency on part of bank – Criminal liability and civil liability are two different aspects of liability – Even if there is no criminal liability, civil liability may remain and can be decided – It is not the case of petitioners that claims are fraudulent – Partnership firm is not a legal person and partners are responsible for any act or omission on part of partnership firm – Liability clearly devolves on partner and it will also extend to LRs of partner if expired – Revision Petitions dismissed.
Held: Therefore, a person can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the deficiency in service for a service provided by a bank or a financial institution. Moreover, this Commission in Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. CTJ 141 (CP) (NCDRC), has taken a view that the banking services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
From the above decisions, it is amply clear that a person availing the services of a bank is a consumer and can file a consumer complaint before the consumer forum for the deficiency on the part of the bank.
It has been argued by the learned counsel that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainants have not resulted into any action against the petitioners. It is an accepted principle of law that the criminal liability and the civil liability are two different aspects of liability. The learned counsel has only stated that the investigating officer has filed a ‘B’ report. It is not clear whether the report has been accepted by the competent criminal court. Even if there is no criminal liability, the civil liability may remain and can be decided. It has been argued by the learned counsel that Mr. Nataraj was the main partner of the partnership firm and the claim has been filed after his death and the complainants have taken advantage of his death. It is not the case of the petitioners that the claims are fraudulent. In fact, a partnership firm is not a legal person and the partners are responsible for any act or omission on the part of the partnership firm. Hence, the liability clearly devolves on the partner and thus, it will also extend to the LRs of the partner if expired. Thus, from this angle also, we do not find any merit in the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners.
Based on the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the revision petitions as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is found in the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition Nos.307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 327 of 2020 are dismissed at the admission stage. (Paras 10, 12, 13 and 14)
Result: Revision Petitions dismissed.
ORDER
These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Savita Kom Nataraj Naragund & ors. against the common order dated 21.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal Nos.2168-2176 and 2178- 2189 of 2016 filed by the petitioners herein against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Kannada at Karwar, (in short ‘the District Forum’) passed in CC Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 of 2014. As the issue is same in all the revision petitions and the impugned order is also similar in nature, these revision petitions are being decided together.
2. The brief facts of these cases are that the petitioner is the wife of the erstwhile partner of a firm namely, Gajanan Finance Corporation. The partnership firm took amounts from the respondents/complainants for fixed deposit to be issued by the firm. The fixed deposit receipts were also issued to the respondents. However, the payments were not made by the firm on the date of maturity of these fixed deposits. Accordingly, the respondents/complainants filed consumer complaints with the District Forum being CC Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42,43,44,45,46 of 2014. These complaints were resisted by the petitioners by filing the written statement in each case, however, the District Forum allowed the complaints by passing the following order:-
“The complaint nos.25/2014, 26/2014, 27/2014, 28/2014, 29/2014, 30/2014, 31/2014, 32/2014,33/2014,34/2014,35/2014,36/2014,37/2014,38/2014,39/2014,40/2014,41/2014,42/2014,43/2014,44/2014,45/2014 and 46/2014 are allowed in part with cost.
The OPs are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant-
1. In CC No.25/2015 Rs.6,52,937/- towards S.B.A./C balance amount.
2. In CC No.26/2014 Rs.1,80,000/- in CC No.27/2014 Rs.1,60,000, in CC No.28/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.29/2014, Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.30/2014, Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.31/2014, Rs,1,80,000/-, in CC No.32/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.33/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.34/2014, Rs.90,000/- in CC No.35/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.36/2014, Rs.,80,000/-, in CC No.37/2014, Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.38/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.39/2014, Rs.90,000/- in CC No.40/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.41/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.42/2014 Rs.40,000/-. In CC No.43/2014 Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.44/2014, Rs.90,000/-, and in CC No.46/2014 Rs.90,000/-, toward FDs maturity amount with interest @12% pa in respect of CC No.26/2014 to 46/2014 and in CC No.25/2014 from the date of last entry at Ex.C-1 till the date of deposit of the amount before the Forum. OPs are granted for one month time for depositing the amount before the Forum from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The liability in respect of OP-2 to 5 is restricted to the estate of late Nataraj J. Nargund in their hands. The liability of OP-10(a) to (d) is also similarly to the estate of deceased OP-10 in their hands.
4. The OPs also hereby directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation in each case.
5. The OPs also hereby directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost in each case.”
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners herein preferred appeals being FA Nos.2168 to 2189 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.06.2019 dismissed these appeals.
4. Hence the present revision petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the amounts were deposited as investment by the respondents/complainants and therefore, the transactions were of commercial nature. The cases of the respondents are not covered under the explanation attached to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the complainants were not maintainable before the District For
