Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22058
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
JAYANT BANERJI, UMESH M ADIGA, JJ
B.M.BHANUMATHI SINGH – Appellant
Versus
BRANCH MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL HOUSING SOCIETY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 673 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.M.D.HARISH KUMAR
For the Respondents: No one mentioned
Consumer relationships cannot be presumed without clear evidence of contractual obligation; complaints against parties require established privity of contract.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ petition filed against orders of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission and State Commission - The petitioner alleged entitlement to Demand Drafts made in her favor, but the court found no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent Bank - The complaint was dismissed as the Bank was not deemed a necessary party. (Paras 3 and 12)
(B) Consumer Relationship - The court observed that a consumer or beneficiary must demonstrate a relationship with the service provider - The absence of such a relationship led to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 9 and 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders dismissing her complaint against a Bank for failing to provide Demand Drafts after the completion of a property sale. The complaint was initially dismissed as the Bank was not a party to the transaction, and no consumer-service relationship was established.
Findings of Court:
The State and National Commissions' findings were upheld, emphasizing the absence of a contractual obligation between the petitioner and the Bank.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had a consumer relationship with the respondent Bank regarding the sale transaction and the Demand Drafts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without any established relationship of consumer and service provider, the petition could not succeed, reaffirming that no claims were valid against the Bank under these circumstances.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint regarding consumer relationship with bank. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. arguments on entitlement to funds. (Para 5 , 9) |
| 3. court observations on contractual obligations. (Para 8 , 11) |
| 4. final conclusion and reasoning. (Para 12) |
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed seeking the following relief:
a. Issue a writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Certiorari by quashing or setting aside the Order passed by the National Consumer dispute Redressal Commission at New Delhi dated 07.08.2023 in First Appeal No.34 of 2021 (Annexure B) against the order passed on 16.06.2020 by the State Commission in Complaint No.118 of 2017 (Annexure A).
b. Issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Mandamus by directing the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 to deposit the amount of Rs.40,00,000/- according to the Demand Draft (Pay order 4) 735754: Rs.40,00,000 along with
18% interest till the disposal of this Petition.
c. Grant any further or such relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case."
3. By the impugned order of the State Commission dated 16.06.2020, it was held that the respondent Bank is not a necessary party to the complaint and it was noticed that the complainant had not made the purchaser, in whose favour the sale deed was executed, a party to the complaint. It was held that there was no transaction between the complainant and the Bank and therefore the complainant failed to establish that the Bank is liable to pay an amount of Rs.40.00 lakhs. It was held that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the respondent -Bank. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.
4. In the other impugned order of the National Commission in which the order passed by the State Commission was challenged, the contention advanced by the Bank was that there was no contract or agreement whatsoever that would create an obligation of the Bank to make payment to the complainant. It was observed that the fiduciary relationship exists between the purchaser of the immovable property and the Bank and not with the seller who is the complainant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by the impugned order of 05.08.2023 by the National Commission.
5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank draft was made in favour of the petitioner and was to be given to the petitioner by the respondent-Bank which it failed to do and therefore, the complaint was filed before the State Commission. The learned counsel has referred to Annexure-E and Annexure-F which are, respectively, the response to the legal notice given by the complainant and the written arguments filed by the respondent -Bank to contend that liability of the Bank was established.
6. We have perused the record.
7. On record is an interlocutory application seeking the amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 19081 read with Section 151 thereof, seeking to bring on record certain documents which have been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but were not on record before the State Commission or the National Commission. He, however, submits that though the photocopies of the Bank Drafts that are sought to be included in this petition by means of the amendment were not on record, the details of these drafts were on record. Apart from that, a paragraph has been sought to CPC be inserted in the Writ Petition to the effect that the petitioner is the beneficiary of the Demand Draft. An amendment to the prayer clause is also sought for a direction to the National Commission to hear the matter afresh. Another paragraph as 11(B) is sought to be inserted with regard to the details of certain Demand Drafts and the contention that the respondent only honoured one Demand Draft amounting to Rs.6,78,110/-.
8. In our considered opinion, the documents that are sought to be brou
