JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER

2. The factual background, in brief, is that the Complainant invested in a Fixed Deposit with Escort Finance Limited (Respondent No. 3/ Opposite Party No. 1). Upon the Fixed Deposit maturing, the UCO Bank (Respondent No. 4/Opposite Party No. 2) did not facilitate the payment of the maturity value. As a result, the Hardship Committee constituted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court directed the Respondent No. 3 to pay Rs. 2,10,000/- to the Complainant. This payment was issued via Demand Draft (DD No. 703329 dated 04.09.2010) and despatched to the Complainant by Registered Post (bearing No. 6826 dated 15.09.2010) from Safdarjung Sorting Post Office (Respondent No. 5/Opposite Party No.5). The Registered Post was intended to be delivered to the Complainant through the Head Post Office, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 6/Opposite Party No. 6). When the Registered Post did not reach the Complainant's address, she inquired with the Respondent No. 3 regarding the status of the Demand Draft. She was informed that the DD had been deposited in the SBI Red Cross Muzaffarpur Branch (Opposite Party No. 3/Respondent No. 2), and subsequently cleared by the SBI Elgin Road Branch Office (Respondent No. 1/Opposite Party No. 4). The Complainant sent a letter dated 10.01.2011 to the Respondent No. 2 seeking clarification on how the payment was processed for a DD dropped in their drop box into an account that was opened after the issue date of the DD. She argued that this constituted a gross violation of standard payment principles. The Respondent No. 2's responses, dated from 17.03.2011 to 26.11.2011, acknowledged the seriousness of the issue, but were limited to assurances that they had informed their higher authorities, and were awaiting instructions from the Respondent No. 1 to remit the amount to the Complainant's account. Additionally, on 31.12.2010, the Complainant queried the Respondent No. 6 about the registered article, asking how it could have been delivered to someone else, if it had been addressed to her. In response, it was stated that the registered article had not been received at their office. Given the absence of proper resolution and response to the issues raised, the Complainant issued a Legal Notice dated 14.08.2012 to all the relevant Opposite Parties, but did not receive any satisfactory reply. Consequently, aggrieved by the deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents, she filed her Complaint before the Ld. District Forum, Muzaffarpur. 

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 06.08.2013 allowed the Complaint and directed the Opposite Party No. 3 and 4 to pay to the Complainant the DD amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- with compounded interest @10% p.a. from 08.10.2010 till the date of realization along with direction to the Opposite Party No. 5 and 6 to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation costs. The aggrieved Opposite Parties then filed their Appeals before the Ld. State Commission, which allowed them, and set-aside the Order of the District Forum. The relevant extracts from the impugned Order are set out as below -

“We have considered the rival case of the parties as also the complaint filed by the complainant as well as reply by the respondents (Opposite Party). Admittedly the investment of money, and its repayment by the opposite party no. 1 a was commercial transaction between them. The complainant has not paid any consideration to the appellants for availing any service a legal requirement for being a consumer of the appellant. The question of negligence and deficiency in service would arise for consideration only if the complainant consumer of the appellant. The allegation in the complaint did not disclose any such averments so as to become consumer of the appellant. This apart the order passed by the District Forum Under Section 14 as referred to in the submission on behalf of the Appellant that order is to be passed by the president sitting with member of the forum conducting the proceedings. We find that the impugned order is not passed by the president. The proceeding and order proceedings must comply the provisions of and order Under Section 14(1) and 2A the Consumer Protection Act the same having not followed the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. It is thus set aside.

In the result, both appeal No.345 of 2013 and Appeal No. 421 of 2013 allowed.”

 

4. Ld. Counsel for Petitioner has argued that the State Commission's impugned Order is fundamentally flawed on several grounds. Firstly, the State Commission had erred in holding that the District Forum's Order dated 06.08.2013 was invalid because the President of the District Forum was unavailable at the time the Order was passed. Such interpretation disregards the provisions of the Bihar Consumer Protection Rules, which expressly permit the passing of orders in the absence of the President. Moreover, Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, also authorizes the passage of orders by the District Forum even if the President is not present. The relevant Section is set out as below –

“29A.    Vacancies or defects in appointment not to invalidate orders.- No act or proceeding of the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall be invalid by reason only of the existence of any vacancy amongst its members or any defect in the constitution thereof.”

The State Commission's reliance on the President's absence as a ground for nullifying the District Forum's decision was legally untenable and in contradiction of the established statutory provisions; That the State Commission's finding that there was no consideration involved and, therefore, no deficiency in service, is also not valid. The postal and banking services, as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, are inherently paid services, irrespective of who makes the payment. In this case, the Postal services were used to send the Demand Draft and the Banking services were involved in processing it, are both paid services. The Petitioner's status as a ‘Consumer’ of these services does not hinge on who paid for them, but on the fact that they are not rendered free of charge; That the State Bank of India (SBI) Muzaffarpur Branch and SBI Kolkata demonstrated a deficiency in service by erroneously crediting a Demand Draft intended for "Vijaya Srivastava" into the account of one "Vijay Srivastava." This error was exacerbated by the fact that the recipient’s account was opened after the issuance of the Demand Draft. Such a glaring mistake in processing and verifying the credentials of the payee constitutes a clear lapse in the standard of service expected from a reputable banking institution; That the Hon’ble Apex Court's decision in "Vodafone Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022) 6 SCC 496" lays down that the definition of “service” under the Consumer Protection Act includes any service, which is not rendered free of charge or under a contract of personal service. Consequently, the Petitioner's right to file the present Petition cannot be ignored for the reasoning that consideration was not paid by her to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The errors made by the banking institutions and the deficiencies in postal services are actionable under the Consumer Protection Act, and therefore entitle the Petitioner to seek redressal for the grievances suffered.

5. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 1 & 2 has argued that that they should not be implicated in the consumer dispute raised by the Petitioner. There is no direct consumer relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The Respondent Banks acted solely on behalf of their customer, Vijay Srivastava, and not in relation to the Petitioner, who is effectively a third party or stranger to any banking transactions involving the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; That the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 merely processed the Demand Draft (DD) deposited by their customer, Vijay Srivastava, and presented it to the Respondent No. 4 (UCO Bank) for collection. The verification and approval of the DD's collection were the responsibilities of the Respondent No. 4. If any discrepancies existed, it was incumbent upon the Respondent No. 4 to reject the DD, or to highlight any issues regarding its legitimacy. The fact that the Respondent No. 4 allowed the collection of the DD amount signifies that any error in processing or verification lies with the Respondent No. 4, and not with the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2; That it is the responsibility of the Postal Authorities (Respondent Nos. 5 and 6) to explain how the DD, which was supposed to be delivered to an address in Muzaffarpur, ended up in Kolkata, allowing one Vijay Srivastava to deposit it with the Respondent No. 1. The role of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 was limited to acting on instructions from their customer and did not extend to verifying the origins or intended recipients of the DD beyond the scope of normal Banking procedures; That the State Commission was correct in allowing the Appeals filed by Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The State Commission rightly concluded that the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 did not engage in any actions that could be construed as a deficiency in service to the Petitioner under the Consumer Protection Act. The actions of the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 were in accordance with the standard banking practices, and were conducted in good faith, based on their customer's submission of the DD.

6. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 has argued that they have fully complied with their obligations under the Order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and the decision of its Hardship Committee. In adherence to this directive, the Respondent No. 3 issued a Demand Draft (DD) for the sum of Rs. 2,10,000/- drawn on UCO Bank in favor of the Petitioner. This DD was duly despatched to the Petitioner via registered post (bearing No. 6826) on 15.09.2010. Despite such despatch, the DD did not reach the Petitioner at her given address. Upon inquiry with Respondent No. 4 (UCO Bank), it was learnt that the DD had been deposited at the SBI Red Cross Branch, Muzaffarpur (Respondent No. 2), and subsequently cleared at the SBI Elgin Road Branch, Kolkata (Respondent No. 1). These facts are uncontested and demonstrate that the Respondent No. 3 had performed its duties diligently by ensuring the DD was sent through an appropriate and traceable method (Registered Post); That they executed their responsibility by preparing and sending the DD through a secure mailing system. There is no indication of negligence or wrongdoing on their part, and they should not be held liable for issues that arose after the DD was despatched, particularly its misdelivery or mishandling by other parties; That the Petitioner has not made any specific allegations or raised any cause of action against the Respondent No. 3 in her Complaint before the District Forum or in the current Petition. The Petitioner’s claims primarily involve the actions of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6, focusing on the subsequent mishandling of the DD and not the initial issuance and dispatch by Respondent No. 3; That the District Forum, after considering the submissions, did not issue any adverse directives against the Respondent No. 3. Instead, the District Forum directed Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 to address the Petitioner's grievances; That the impugned Order therefore ought to be upheld concerning their actions, as there is no basis for holding the Respondent No. 3 accountable for misdelivery of the Demand Draft.

7. Ld. Counsel for Respondent No. 5 has argued that the Petitioner does not qualify as a ‘Consumer’ of the Respondent No. 5 (Postal Department) under any circumstances. The Petitioner neither paid for nor directly utilized the Postal services, which were availed and paid for, by the Respondent No. 3 to send the Demand Draft (DD). Consequently, any contractual relationship or consumer status is between the Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 5, and not the Petitioner; That the DD was drawn on UCO Bank and sent for collection through the State Bank of India (SBI). After the DD’s clearance, the proceeds were transferred to SBI Kolkata. If there were any errors or deficiencies in processing, these issues would fall under the responsibility of the drawee Bank (UCO Bank) or the collecting Bank (SBI), and not the Postal Department. Hence, any claims regarding the mishandling of the DD should be directed towards the involved Banking Institutions, and not the Respondent No. 5; That the District Forum's Order directed the Postal Department to compensate the Petitioner with Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical harassment. This compensation was paid by the Postal Department to comply with the District Forum's Order, thereby resolving their part in the dispute. As a result, the Postal Department has fulfilled its obligations under the Order, and there is no further scope for the Petitioner to pursue claims against them. 

8. This Commission has heard both the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner and Respondents, and perused the material available on record.

9. In the considered opinion of this Commission, both the reasons for which the Ld. State Commission had set aside the order of the District Forum are not tenable. This is so because, firstly, in holding that the Complainant was not a ‘Consumer’ qua the Postal Authorities as she had not been paid any consideration for any service, is not consistent with Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which provides that not only the purchaser, or the person who pays the consideration, but also the beneficiary on whose behalf the goods or service are availed of, becomes a ‘Consumer’ for the purpose of raising claim under the Consumer Protection Act, as would be clear from a bare perusal of the relevant provision, which is set out as below -  

(i)……………

(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, of partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]…….”

10.   Further, the view that Order of the District Forum was unsustainable since it was not passed by the President of the Forum, would also not appear to be a correct observation, which has only been made on the basis of bald application of Section 14 (1) & (2A) of the Consumer Protection Act, but the relevant Bihar Consumer Protection Rules which expressly passing of the Order in absence of the President, were ignored by the State Commission, in addition to the provision of Section 29A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which has already been noted in the earlier Paragraph No. 4 lays down that no act or proceedings of the Consumer Forum “shall be invalid by reason only of ….. or any defect in the constitution thereof”.

11.      For the aforesaid reasons, this Commission is of the opinion that the Ld. State Commission had acted erroneously in setting aside the well-reasoned Order of the learned District Forum, on account of which the impugned Order is set aside. The Revision Petitions are therefore allowed by restoring the Order of the learned District Forum.  No orders as to costs.

12. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous.