Back
ORISSA HIGH COURT CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, J.
Oriental Bank of Commerce - Petitioner
versus
Minarva Dash and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.775 OF 2015
Decided On : 10.09.2015
2. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - Sec. 19 - Appeal Any person aggrieved by any order made by State Commission in exercise of its power conferred by sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 17 of the Act may prefer an appeal against such order to the National Commission - No appeal lies against an order passed in exercise of power under Section 17(1)(b) of the Act.
3. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - Sec. 17(1)(b) - Power of the State Commission to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any District Forum within the State, where it appears to the State Commission that such District Forum has exercised a . jurisdiction (i) not vested in it by law, or (ii) has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or (iii) has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
4. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - Sec. 21 (b) - Power to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any ’consumer dispute’ which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission ’consumer dispute’ as defined in Sub-Section (e) of Section 2 of the Act means a dispute where the person against whom a complaint has been made, denies or disputes the allegations contained in the complaint - The power under Section 21 (b) is in respect of complaint filed before the State Commission - National Commission would have no such power if the impugned order is passed by the State Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 17(1)(b) in respect of ’consumer dispute’ which is pending before or has been decided by the District Forum.
5. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 10 - Consumer Protection Act - State Commission has committed a gross error by holding that the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 has no relationship of ’consumer’ qua ’service provider/trader’ and as such is not to be added a necessary party- It is not that a party against whom the relief is claimed should only be added either as a necessary or proper party - A party is a necessary party, whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceeding - Interference by the State Commission only on the ground that there is no relationship of ’consumer qua service provider/trader’ between the husband of the complainant and the Bank is misconceived one - Hon’ble Court found that the husband of complainant-opposite party no.1 is a necessary party to the proceeding and the learned District Forum has not committed any error in directing his impletion justifying interference by the learned State Commission - Order passed by the State Commission is quashed and consequently, the order passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum is affirmed.
JUDGMENT :
Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.
The petitioner-Oriental Bank of Commerce has filed this petition seeking to quash the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Cuttack in Revision Petition No. 138 of 2014 vide Annexure-6, by which the learned State Commission has set aside the order dated 10.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul in C.C.No.10 of 2014 impleading the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as a party in the consumer dispute case pending before it.
2. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the complainant-opposite party no.1 filed a complaint before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Angul alleging that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was deducted from her account without her knowledge and consent, for which she raised a grievance but no action was taken by the Bank. According to her, on 30.11.2010, the Bank deducted a sum of Rs. 50,000/- from her current account by mentioning “DD/CC issued” and the bank delayed in settling the account as a result of which the complainant-opposite party no.1 issued a lawyer?s notice on 24.10.2013 to which the Bank replied and stated that deduction was made at the instance of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as the amount has been utilized by her husband for taking the insurance policy. Therefore, through several letters, the complainant-opposite party no.1 demanded a copy of the document by which the Bank was instructed to debit an amount from her account stating that her husband had nothing to do with the account of her independent business firm. Such application was filed on 27.01.2014 i.e. more than three years after the money was illegally debited from her account as alleged. Therefore, the complainant-opposite party no.1 filed the aforementioned application seeking for the following relief:
(i) To refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant with interest @18% from the date of deduction till actual payment.
(ii) To pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the Complainant towards the loss of time and money spent in running after the O.P. and his staffs and loss in business.
(iii) To pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony and harassment suffered by him in that period.
(iv) To pay Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant against the cost of litigation.
(v) To recover all the award money from the erring officer of the Bank.
(vi) Any other relief(s) the Forum thinks fit.”
3. The petitioner-Bank filed its reply stating that the amount has been debited towards payment of insurance premium in the name of Susant Kumar Nanda, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1. The proposal form was duly filled in by the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 but as he did not have sufficient credit balance in his account, on the instruction of the complainant-opposite party no.1 the amount has been debited from her account for the Demand Draft No. 801021 dated 30.11.2010. The complainant-opposite party no.1 is also a nominee in the said insurance policy and the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 has been paying the insurance premium regularly including the amount so deducted. On 02.12.2010, the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 requested for change of date of birth of his wife-nominee.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 is a necessary party without whose presence the case cannot be effectively adjudicated, the opposite party nos. 1 to 3 in the Court below- Bank filed an application on 14.03.2014, seeking leave of the learned District Forum to add the husband of the complainant-opposite party no.1 as a party. Objection was filed by the complainant-opposite party no.1 vide Annexure-4 stating, inter alia, that there is no provision under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, hereinafter to be referred to as “the Act”, in short, to add a 3rd party, who is neither a „consum
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
