BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD
F.A.No.78 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.627 OF 2007 DISTRICT FORUM-I VISAKHAPATNAM
Between:
1. Reserve Bank of India, represented by its
Governor, Central Office, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
2. Reserve Bank of India, represented
by its Chief General Manager, Public Debt Office,
Saifabad, Hyderabad – 500 004.
Appellant/opposite parties No.1&2
A N D
1. Dr. Mrs. M.Ratnamala, W/o Dr.Koteswara Rao,
aged 42 years, Allopathic Medical Practioner
R/o Door No.31-33-45, Saibaba Street,
Visakhapatnam -530 020.
Respondent/complainant
2. M/s. Integrated Enterprises (India) Ltd.,
represented by its Chairman & Managing Director,
Head Office, 1st floor, Kences Towers, No.1,
Ramakrishna Street, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.
3. M/s. Integrated Enterprises (India) Ltd.,
represented by its Branch Head, 3rd floor,
Dwaraka Plaza, Dwarakanagar, Visakhapatnam – 530 016.
Respondents/opposite parties no.3 and 4
Counsel for the Appellants M/s B.Nalin Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent Mr.CNSP Krishna Rao (R1)
Mr.A.Muralidhar Reddy (R2&3)
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE EIGTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)
***
1. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 are the appellants.
2. The factual matrix of the case is the complainant is that the daughter of Dr.Sarabhalingam and Dr.Jogulamba of Visakhapatnam. The Doctor couple purchased 10% relief bonds, during 1995 and 1996 for `25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only), under three bonds of `10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only), `10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) and `5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only). At the time of making deposits, Dr.Sarabhalingam submitted nomination in favour of his daughter, Dr.Ratnamala, the complainant. The applications in form ‘A’ signed by both the wife and husband. There was no communication by the opposite parties Nos.1 and 2 that the nomination in favour of the daughter is not accepted. Dr.Sarabhalingam passed away on 22-5-2000. It is claimed that Dr.Jogulamba, by her letter dated 8-8-2000 informed the death of her husband enclosing the death certificate thereto and also renewed the nomination in favour of her daughter, the complainant. The letter was claimed to have been not received by the opposite party no.2. Dr.Jogulamba passed away on 4-3-2001. The stipulated period of redemption of bonds is 15-4-2001. The complainant had sent letter dated 22-3-2001 duly discharging the three bonds to the Bank. As there was no response, she got issued a notice dated 4-4-2001 requesting the appellant bank to renew the bonds in her favour as she being nominee and only legal heir to the bond holder.
3. As there was no response, the complainant approached the appellant bank and pleads at that time only she was informed as to the necessity of succession certificate in order to claim the amount. The complainant was not asked in writing except on 18-5-2001 of the appellant bank’s demand for succession certificate. The complainant raising protest therefor obtained succession certificate. The amount under the bonds `25 lakh was released together `2,17,861/- said to be accrued interest. Payment of maturity of amount was made in the year, 2003 and interest calculation was stopped with effect from March 2003. Earlier on 10-07-2001, the bank sent interest warrants in the name of Dr.Sarabhalingam, who by the time was no more in the world. When there was valid nomination made by her father in her favour and also as a sole legal heir, by her mother, she is entitled to receive back the amount and insistence upon obtaining succession certificate in order to entitle her for such payment is nothing but incorrect and it amounts to deficiency in service. Because of that insistence, the complaint was forced to spend `1,72,885/- for obtaining succession certificate. She is entitled for interest at 10% up to 7-10-2003, the date of payment and deducting interest already paid, she is entitled for `4,65,889/- Thus she claimed `6,38,774/- in total.
4. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 resisted the case contending that it has been discharging the statutory duty acting on behalf of the Government of India in accepting the deposit and there is no banking service that is provided by it to the complainant and hence the dispute between them would not be a consumer dispute, under the Act. Under the rules relating to the 10% bonds, the facility of nomination is available only to a sole holder of the deposit, but not joint with another individual and it is a joint deposit by the couple and so the nomination, though given is not permissible and invalid. As per section 7 of Public Debt Act 1944, the claimant has to obtain either probate of will, letter of administration, succession certificate granted by competent court, or Mitakshara certificate, to facilitate payment and the complainant was advised to obtain the certificate by letter dated 18-05-2001. The letter dated 8-8-2000 purported to be of Dr.Jogulamba, was not received by the appellant bank. Even if it is accepted the nomination should be in prescribed proforma in order to be accepted. It also asserted that payment of interest after maturity of bonds would be as per existing rules of the Government. Thus the appellant bank justified in insistence upon seeking of succession certificate and also payment of interest up to a particular date only at the contract rate.
5. The complainant filed her affidavit and the doucments Ex.A1 to Ex.A12. The Assistant General Manager of the opposite party no.2 and the Branch Manager of the opposite party no.4 have filed affidavits and the documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B16.
6. The District Forum has allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant bank ought to have not insisted for the respondent no.1 obtaining succession certificate in view of the nomination facility availed by the first respondent’s mother.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum the opposite parties no.1 and 2 bank has filed the appeal contending that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation and that the first respondent is not consumer within the provisions of the C.P. Act as also that the first respondent’s father or mother has not availed the nomination facility and that even in the case of nomination availed by joint account holders it becomes invalid.
8. The points for consideration are:
1. Whether the complaint is filed within the period of limitation/
2. Whether the Govt. of India is a proper party to the complaint?
3. Whether the first respondent is entitled to the relief granted by the District Forum?
4. To what relief?
9. POINT NO.1: The appellant has raised objection as to the maintainability of the complaint on the limitation aspect. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the complaint was not filed within the period of limitation. A perusal of the record show that the complaint was filed on 31.10.2006. According to the first respondent limitation would start for filing the complaint from 7.10.2003 when the fourth additional District Court Visakhapatnam issued succession certificate in her favour. The first respondent has filed petition to condone the delay of 390 days in filing the complaint and the application, I.A.No.783 of 2006 was resisted by the appellant bank herein by filing counter contending that the date of maturity of the stock certificate held by the first respondent’s parents was 15.4.2001 and there was no nomination facility for the bonds jointly held by or in the name of Hindu undivided family. The District Forum has allowed the petition condoning the delay on the premise that the first respondent had undergone major surgery for multiple fibroids in uterus and ovarian cyst. The appellant bank has not filed appeal against the order of the District forum condoning the delay in filing the complaint. In the absence of filing of the appeal against the order the appellant bank cannot challenge the maintainability of the complaint after the complaint is disposed of. As such the point is answered against the appellant bank.
10. POINT NO.2: The appellant bank has taken a specific plea in its written statement that it has acted as an agent of the Government of India in issuing the bonds to the first respondent and her parents and in the absence of the Govt. of India, principal of the appellant being made a party to the complaint, the complaint is not maintainable. The appellant bank has contended that the Union of India is its principal and the appellant bank has transacted in issuing the bond on behalf of its principal, Union of India in terms of rules and regulations framed by Union of India.
11. The Government of India is not made a party to the proceedings. There is no denial of the fact that the appellant bank was discharging the contractual obligation in issuing the bonds in favour of the first respondent parents. The District Forum has come to the conclusion that issuing of the bonds by the appellant bank is a contractual liability and not a statutory obligation on the part of the appellant bank. It is not denied that the appellant bank had acted as the agent of union of India by issuing the bonds in favour of the first respondent and her parents. The learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that Sec.80 of CPC is not applicable to the proceedings under C.P.Act and that the appellant bank cannot insist that the Govt. of India has to be impleaded as a party. The learned counsel for the first respondent has contended that the first respondent has exceeded its authority as contemplated u/s 238 of the India Contract Act and that the appellant bank has failed to perform legal obligation and contractual duty. Sec.238 of the Indian Contract Act reads as under:
Section 238 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872
238. Effect on agreement, of misrepresentation of fraud, by agent.- Misrepresentation made, or frauds committed, by agents acting in the course of their business for their principals, have the same effect on agreements made by such agents as if such misrepresentations or frauds had been made or committed by the principals; but misrepresentations made, or frauds committed, by agents, in matters which do not fall within their authority, do not affect their principals. Illustrations
(a) A, being B' s agent for the sale of goods, induces C to buy them by a misrepresentation, which hhe was not authorized by B to make, The contract is voidable, as between B and C, at the option of C.
(b) A, the captain of B' s ship, signs bills of lading without having received on board the goods mentioned therein. The bills of lading are void as between B and the pretended cosignor. CHAPTER XI.-[ Of Partnership.] Rep. by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (9 of 1932 ), s. 73 and Schh. II. SCHEDULE.-[ Enactments repealed.] Rep. by the Repealing and Amending Act, 1914 (10 of 1914 ), s. 3 and Sch. II.
12. The first respondent has not attributed any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of appellant bank nor has it made any allegation in regard to the appellant bank exceeding authority conferred on it and as such personal liability of the appellant bank cannot be attributed. We feel that the Union of India, the principal of the appellant bank is a necessary party to the proceedings. In the circumstances, the complaint cannot be held maintainable in the absence of the Union of India as a party to it. We are inclined to remit back the matter giving opportunity to the first respondent to implead the Union of India as a party to the proceedings and the impleaded party will have all remedies available to it in law including the mandatory requirement or non-requirement of notice under Sec.80 of CPC.
13. POINT NO.3 In view of the finding that the principal of the appellant bank has to be made the party to the proceedings, we do not deem it necessary to deal with the objections raised by the appellant bank in regard to the first respondent’s parents not appointing her as a nominee, nomination being invalid and non-submission of letter from the mother of the first respondent etc., will be considered by the District Forum in the fresh enquiry.
14. POINT NO.4: In the result the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum. The matter is remitted back to the District Forum for enabling the complainant to implead the Union of India as party to the complaint. No costs.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.08.06.2012
KMK*
