NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 16 OF 2012
(Against the order dated 16.12.2011 in Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2011 of the State Commission, UT Chandigarh)
Union Bank of India
SCO-802,
N.A.C., Mani Mazra
Chandigarh ……….Appellant
Versus
1. Manoj Gupta
2. Vipin Gupta
Both sons of late Shri A.L. Gupta
Both house No.1664, Mani Mazra
Chandigarh .........Respondents
BEFORE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA,
PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Appellants : Mr. Aditya Madan, Advocate
PRONOUNCED ON: 27.03.2012
ORDER
PER MR.VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
In this appeal, the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT of Chandigarh, in Consumer Complaint No.40 of 2011, has been challenged. The two Complainants are sons of late A.L.Gupta , who was the sole proprietor of M/s. George Printing Works, Manimajra, Chandigarh. After his death in 2006, the Complainants requested the OP/Union Bank of India to release funds of the order over Rs.19 lakhs lying in FDRs. In order to meet the requirement of the Bank, the Complainants also obtained a succession certificate from the Civil Court on 15.3.2011. The matter was pursued with the Bank, but other than Rs.26370/- to each Complainant, the rest of the money in the FDRs was not released. It was claimed by the OP/Bank that the same was pledged on account of bank guarantees issued by the bank on behalf of the firm. Therefore, the Consumer Complaint was filed in the State Commission on 8.6.2011.
2. In the order now impugned before us, the State Commission allowed the complaint with the following directions—
a) “The OPs shall release the principal amount alongwith interest, as applicable with respect to all the FDRs/STDs, in favour of the complainants as on 16.3.2011, minus the amount already paid
.
b) The OPs shall supply the statement of account with respect to each FDR/STD to the complainants since its deposit till 16.3.2011.
c) The OPs shall pay interest on the due amount @ 12% per annum since 17.3.2011 till its actual payment to the complainants.
d) The OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.1,500/-, deducted as Advocate’s fee, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 16.4.2011 till the amount is paid back to the complainants.
e) Since the OPs have harassed the complainants and did not release the amount promptly, thereby causing them mental tension and harassment, the OPs shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.
The above referred amounts, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-, shall be paid to the complainants within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12 per annum w.e.f. the date of this order till the payment is actually made to the complainants.”
3. As detailed in the complaint petition, the entire amount of Rs.19.09 lakhs was in thirteen different accounts for which details were sought from OP, but not supplied. It is alleged that both these acts of non-supply of accounts and non-release of the funds, amounted to deficiency in service, on the part of the OP/Union Bank of India.
4. In the written response before the State Commission appellant/Union Bank of India claimed that the FDRs/STD were in the name of M/s. George Printing Works, and in lieu of some of them several bank guarantees were given by the Bank to BSNL on behalf of the firm (M/s. George Printing Works), who were printings directories for BSNL. It was claimed that the entire transaction being commercial in nature, the Complainants could not be treated as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It was also claimed that the amount in FD cannot be released till the bank guarantees are got returned or discharged from the BSNL.
5. It is seen from the written response of the appellant/OP that some new FDRs were made and a few bank guarantees were returned, subsequent to the death of the father of the Complainants in 2006. However, without going into any details of the bank guarantees given as on the date of the Written Response i.e. 28.9.2011, it has been claimed on behalf of the OP/Bank that the FDRs were pledged as security for the bank guarantees.
6. It is claimed by the OPs that the bank guarantees were issued on behalf of the firm, M/s. George Printing Works and therefore, the transactions should be treated as commercial. This argument is not accepted by the State Commission, which has held that the amounts sought by the Complainants were held in FDRs/STDs in the personal name of Shri A.L. Gupta. Even if some bank guarantees were issued subsequently in the name of the firm, it will not make the transaction of making FDRs commercial as bank guarantees are issued subsequent to the FDRs. The State Commission has also held that it was for the OPs/Union Bank of India to approach the BSNL for return of the bank guarantees. The Commission has observed that:-
“It is admitted case of the OPs, as mentioned in their reply, that the bank guarantees were given by them to the BSNL and not to the complainants. It is not their case if the complainants are having those bank guarantees in their personal capacity. The OPs, therefore cannot ask the complainants to return the bank guarantees. It is, in fact, the BSNL who should be approached by the OPs for the return of the bank guarantees if ever they require the same. Secondly, it is admitted that the said bank guarantees have since expired in the year 2006-2007. It is also admitted that the said bank guarantees cannot be enforced against the OPs and their liability under the said bank guarantees has ceased to exist since long. It is not understood as to what for the OP Bank requires those bank guarantees which have no value as on date. The insistence of the OPs for the said bank guarantees, and that too from the complainants to whom these were never given nor are the same held by them, is, therefore, devoid of merit and a useless adventure.”
7. We have examined the record of the case and heard Shri Aditya Madan, Advocate for the appellant/Union Bank of India. Even in the memorandum of appeal the appellant has merely claimed that a number of Bank Guarantees had been issued in favour of BSNL by the appellant Bank at the request of M/s. George Printing Works, through its sole proprietor, Shri A.L. Gupta and that the aforesaid FDRs had been kept under lien/pledge in lieu of the said Bank Guarantees. This is as vague as the response of the appellant/Union Bank of India before the State Commission. No details are forth coming from them as to how many bank guarantees were invoked by the BSNL and how many others were current (i.e. with un-expired or renewed validity), though not invoked, as on the date of response.
8. The appeal memorandum refers to a specific case of a bank guarantees dated 8.9.2008 being invoked by the BSNL. There is nothing to show that some others too had been invoked. This would mean that the OP/bank was seeking to rely on a solitary case of invocation of bank guarantee for holding on to all the funds in the various FDRs claimed by the respondents/Complainants. Even in this solitary case, the appellant has failed to mention the amount involved in the bank guarantee. The record before the State Commission also disclose that the Complainant had to take recourse to the provision under the Right To Information Act, for obtaining information relating to the FDRs.
9. The above conduct of the appellant/OP Union Bank of India is to be seen in the light of the averments in the complaint petition before the State Commission that the Complainant asked the bank to supply the statement of accounts after producing the succession certificate, death certificate and affidavit, yet no detailed accounts were supplied. The complaint petition specifically alleged that the act of not supplying the statements of each account separately to the Complainants and further the act of not releasing the total balance amount in favour of the Complainants within reasonable time by the Opposite parties since the date of receipt of succession certificate i.e. 16-03-2011 till date, amounts to deficiency in service.
10. From the examination above, it is clear that:-
a) In the name of some guarantees being given to the BSNL, the OP/Bank has held on to all the funds in Fixed Deposit Accounts of the late father of the Complainants.
b) In the proceedings before the State Commission, the OP could refer to only one bank guarantee, which had been invoked by the BSNL on 8.9.2008. Even this information was incomplete, as the amount involved is not revealed.
c) OP/Bank has not given any details of the bank guarantees which had current validity as on the date of the itsWritten Response, or as on any other date.
d) OP/Bank claimed lien over all the Fixed Deposit on the ground of their being held as security for the bank guarantees given to the BSNL. But, the OP has completely failed to relate the amount in the fix deposits to the amount in bank guarantees, given to the BSNL and having un-expired validity.
e) There is no explanation why the bank did not give full account in this behalf to the Complainants, despite specific and repeated requests.
f) Even in the written response before the State Commission only generalized claims have been made by the bank in the name of bank guarantees given to BSNL. The response does not give details of how many bank guarantees (whether original or renewed) given to the BSNL were current on the date of the complaint or during the course of the proceedings before the State Commission.
11. Thus, it is clear that the act of not supplying statement of accounts for each FD account to the Complainants and the act of not releasing the amount held (without revealing any details) by the bank as alleged security, clearly amounts to deficiency in service. We therefore agree with the State Commission that the Complainants are entitled to refund of the said amounts.
12. In our considered view, the entire proceedings before the State Commission, and in the present appeal before this Commission, could have been avoided, had the appellant furnished the accounts to the complainants. Their failure has subjected the complainants to very unnecessary and avoidable litigation. Therefore, compensation of Rs.50,000/-, awarded in the impugned order, is considered fully justified.
13. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same is therefore, dismissed. The order of the State Commission UT of Chandigarh in CC No. 40 of 2011 is confirmed in entirety. There are no orders as to costs.
.………………Sd./-…………
(V.B.GUPTA,J.)
PRESIDING MEMBER
………………Sd./-………….
(VINAY KUMAR)
MEMBER
s./-
