DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, (President) and Pinki, Member (Judicial)
M/s S.B.A. Services – Complainant
versus
ICICI Bank Ltd. – Opp. Parties
Complaint Case No.1489 of 2018
Decided on 10.4.2023

Headnote:

(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17, Section 2(1)(d) Consumer – Commercial Purpose - [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – banking – Current Account Holder – Whether qualifies as Commercial Purpose / Consumer - On facts, it is crucial to comprehend that in present times, services provided by banks have become an indispensable part for an individual or any other entity for conducting business, obviously on account of the financial regulatory regime and the whole arrangement for maintaining funds, receiving money and for fulfilling the requirement of payment obligations in any business activity. All individuals, business entities or professionals are required to maintain their bank accounts and undertake transactions in their day-to-day conduct, whether current or savings – Thus, a current account holder ostensibly appears to be a commercial entity, although such factum of association with commercial activity – Therefore, it is established that Complainant being a current account holder was engaging in banking services not intertwined in the main activity of its business, is a consumer well within the definition as provided under the Act. [Paras 5 to 16].

(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17, Section 2(1)(d) Consumer – Commercial Purpose - [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – banking – Current Account Holder – territorial jurisdiction of commission - Whether the Commission has jurisdiction to deal with the present Complaint – On facts, it is evident from the Complaint that the amount prayed for as compensation is Rs.98,00,000/- which falls well within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore the Commission has the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to deal with the present Complaint – Also, The transactions pertain to the Opposite Party No.2 branch and as such the cause of action arose in Delhi. Therefore, this commission is fully empowered to adjudicate the present consumer complaint and is not paralyzed due to the want of territorial jurisdiction. [Paras 17 to 20].

(C) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17, Section 2(1)(d), Section 24A – Commercial Purpose - [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – banking – Current Account Holder – Practice And procedure – Limitation – Complaint if barred by Limitation - Complainant is within its right to file the present Complaint as the cause of action arose on the date the memo was issued by Punjab National Bank on 16.05.2017 through which the cheques were dishonoured/returned. Thus, the Complaint has been filed well within the period of limitation i.e. on 22.11.2018 within two years from the date the cause of action arose in terms Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the Complaint is treated to be filed within limitation. [Paras 21 to 22].

(D) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.17, Section 2(1)(d), Section 24A – Commercial Purpose - [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.47(1)] – Services – banking – Current Account Holder – Duplicate cheques / printing / supplying - whether the Opposite Parties were negligent in their conduct in as much as duplicate cheques were printed and supplied in the Cheque Book to the Complainant – On facts, printing of double cheques is grossly negligent on part of the Opposite Party No.2 bank and has caused unnecessary hassle and mental agony to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 being the principal concern is also held liable for deficient service and negligent conduct on part of the Opposite Party No.2 branch – Therefore, Complaint allowed with costs – Further, that amount demanded by the Complainant i.e. Rs.98,00,000/- as compensation is highly exaggerated and does not commensurate with the alleged deficiency on part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs.55,00,000/- as loss incurred due to cancellation of Partnership Deed and Rs.30,00,000 due to loss on account of spoiled reputation in market. However, sufficient material has not been placed on record to justify the abovementioned amount as compensation – Therefore, Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant towards the claim for amount forfeited vide Sale Agreement dated 11.05.2017.

Held: The third issue relates to whether the Complaint is barred by limitation. To deal with this issue, we deem it appropriate to refer to Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986: –

(1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.

Applying the above settled law, it is clear that the Complainant is within its right to file the present Complaint as the cause of action arose on the date the memo was issued by Punjab National Bank on 16.05.2017 through which the cheques were dishonoured/returned. Thus, the Complaint has been filed well within the period of limitation i.e. on 22.11.2018 within two years from the date the cause of action arose in terms Section 24A(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the Complaint is treated to be filed within limitation. Having dealt with the preliminary objections, we are now faced with the main question whether the Opposite Parties were negligent in their conduct in as much as duplicate cheques were printed and supplied in the Cheque Book to the Complainant.

On a perusal of the record, it is clear from the letters of communication and emails that the Complainant diligently followed up with the Opposite Parties to know the reason for the dishonour of its cheques, but no satisfactory response was given to him. The Opposite Parties were informed vide application dated 19.05.17 and the Complainant received the first response only after a month i.e. on 19.06.17. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties could only furnish the reason vide email dated 11.08.17 i.e. after around 3 months. It is implausible as to why did the Opposite Parties make such inordinate delay in redressing the grievance of the Complainant. Furthermore, it is an admitted fact by the Opposite Parties that due to the printing issue, double cheques bearing nos. 633445, 633446 and 633447 were printed by the vendor. It is also not in dispute that when the Complainant presented the cheques for encashment, the same were dishonoured. The reason for the dishonour is reflected as “cheque already passed in the system” in Annexure C2 & C3 with the present Complaint. As is reflected from Annexure C-18 with the present Complaint, the Opposite Parties have clearly admitted their failure to process the query within the promised time. Therefore, negligence on part of the Opposite Parties is evident from the face of the record and deficiency is attributable to the conduct of the Opposite Parties as the Complainant was made to suffer hardship for apparently no fault on his part.

In our opinion, printing of double cheques is grossly negligent on part of the Opposite Party No.2 bank and has caused unnecessary hassle and mental agony to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.1 being the principal concern is also held liable for deficient service and negligent conduct on part of the Opposite Party No.2 branch.

It is also pertinent to mention here that we do not concur with the compensation as calculated by the Complainant. On perusal of the prayer clause, we are of the view that amount demanded by the Complainant i.e. Rs. 98,00,000/- as compensation is highly exaggerated and does not commensurate with the alleged deficiency on part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 55,00,000/- as loss incurred due to cancellation of Partnership Deed and Rs.30,00,000 due to loss on account of spoiled reputation in market. However, sufficient material has not been placed on record to justify the abovementioned amount as compensation. Therefore, we are not inclined to award the entire aforesaid amount as compensation.

. Keeping in view the facts of the present case and the extensive law discussed above, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay Rs. 3,00,000/- to the Complainant towards the claim for amount forfeited vide Sale Agreement dated 11.05.2017: –

A. A simple interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from 19.05.2017 (the date on which the cheques were dishonoured and the Complainant asked the Opposite Party No.1 the reasons for said dishonour) till 10.04.2023 (being the date of present judgment);

B. The rate of interest payable as per the aforesaid clause (A) is subject to the condition that the Opposite Parties pay the entire amount on or before 10.06.2023

C. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Opposite Parties fail to pay the amount as per the aforesaid clause (A) on or before 10.06.2023 the entire amount is to be paid along with a simple interest @ 9% p.a. calculated from the date on which the cheques were dishonoured by the Opposite Party No.1 till the actual realization of the amount. [Paras 21 to 27].

Result: Complaint allowed.