IMPORTANT POINT
Banking Services – Deficiency in Service – Consumer Dispute – Amount deposited by complainant is at the disposal of Bank & service rendered by bank is not a free service.

JUDGMENT

Ajith Kumar D., Judicial Member.—The appellants are the opposite parties in C.C. No. 115/2013 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (District Commission for short). As per the order dated 10.06.2015, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and directed the 1st opposite party to pay 29,268.51 US dollars, with interest @ 18% as per the conversion value as on 06.06.2012 and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this appeal has been filed.

2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is maintaining an NRE account with the 1st opposite party since 1993. On 24.05.2011, the complainant had deposited a DD of US Dollars 28762.62 in FCNR Term Deposit for 12 months, so that he could withdraw the amount in US dollars at any time during the said period. During September 2011 the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party for withdrawal of the amount as he was in urgent need of foreign currency and the conversion value had reached Rs. 57/- per dollar. But the Manager told the complainant that the deposit was transferred to forward booking from FCNR term deposit by the previous Manager, and therefore, he cannot release the amount in US dollars. Though the complainant took up the matter with the Deputy General Manager, he received a reply that there was no agreement with the bank and the complainant to release the amount in US dollars. The 1st opposite party had credited some amount in Indian rupees in June 2012 in his NRE account. Before crediting the amount, the 1st opposite party had sent a scanned copy of the RLFCD deposit receipt to the complainant. The receipt shows that the amount was originally deposited in the FCNR term deposit with interest @ 1.73%. On 21.12.2012 the complainant had caused issuance of a lawyer notice to the opposite parties to release the deposit in US dollars. The 2nd opposite party told the complainant that by transferring the account in RLFCD the interest rate was @ 9% and if the account was continued in FCNR account the interest would fetch only 1.73%. So, it was told that as per the request of the complainant, money was deposited in RFLCD account. The complainant had suffered huge loss in causing a change regarding the nature of his account without his permission. So, the complainant would seek for a direction to the opposite parties to release the amount in US dollars along with interest and compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs and costs.

3. The opposite parties had entered appearance and filed a joint version with the following contentions: The complainant had suppressed material facts. The opposite parties had taken due care and caution to ensure that the complainant was benefited. The complainant is not a “consumer” under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint was not maintainable. The investment was made without obtaining any consent of the opposite parties. For facilitating such an investment, the bank had provided only assistance without any charges for the services. On 24.05.2011 the complainant had approached the 1st opposite party and enquired about the various investment schemes available to the NRIs. The two options with regard to the RLFCD account and FCNR account were detailed to the complainant. It was on understanding both the schemes, the complainant had opened an account under RLFCD scheme and deposited US dollars by way of a demand draft drawn on a foreign bank and instructed the opposite party to invest the proceeds in the RLFCD scheme. The date of maturity of the investment as on 06.06.2012 was intimated to the complainant. As per RLFCD investment, the maturity proceeds were made in Indian Rupee with the agreed rate of interest and credited to the NRE Account of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on their part. They would seek for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 on the s