1.       These cross First Appeals (FAs) has been filed by the under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the common order dated 30.01.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 372/2016.

2.       FA/675/2018 has been filed by the appellant, who were OPs before the State Commission in the said CC/372/2016 inter alia praying to set aside the order passed by the State Commission.

3.       FA/1632/2018 has been filed by the appellant, who was the complainant in the said CC/372/2018 inter alia praying to enhance the compensation awarded by the State Commission.

4.       As both the Appeals have been filed against the same order of the State Commission, parties involved are the same, and issues for consideration/determination are related, these are being taken up together under this order. However, for the sake of convenience, First Appeal (FA) No. 675/2018 is treated as the lead case and facts enumerated herein under are taken from FA 675/2018.

5.       Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) in both the FAs on 23.05.2018 and 04.02.2019 respectively. Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 02.05.2022 (OP) and 11.05.2022 respectively.

6.       Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the FAs, Order of the State Commission and other case records are that: -

The complainant, a non-resident Indian residing in the UK, deposited a substantial amount in FCNRs fixed deposits with the OPs, which were set to mature on specific dates. Upon his visit to India in January 2015, accompanied by his daughter, the complainant sought to encash and transfer the FCNR amounts to his UK account, providing necessary details to OP-4. However, despite repeated visits and requests over six weeks, the OP claimed inability to locate the original file, delaying the process. False pretenses were used, including claims from others, and the OP's actions were deemed unfair and disregarding their obligations towards the complainant. Several attempts and legal notices were made to facilitate the transfer, revealing that the FCNRs had been encashed earlier, without the knowledge of to the complainant. Despite this, necessary information wasn't provided, and the OPs failed to transfer the amount until a High Court order mandated the transfer to the complainant's Kotak Mahindra Bank account in India. The complainant was further compelled to seek court intervention due to his prolonged stay in India, incurring significant expenses for lodging, legal counsel, and health reasons. The High Court eventually ordered the transfer to the specified account, acknowledging the complainant's legitimate claim over the deposited amounts. Complainant filed a case under the Consumer Protection Act where the State Consumer Commission partially upheld the complainant's claim against the Appellant Bank for deficient services related to the release of FCNR (Foreign Currency Non-Resident) amounts. The Commission directed the bank to pay the complainant Rs. 5,09,288/- for losses incurred due to income loss during encashment, legal fees, hotel expenses, and compensation.

7.       Vide Order dated 30.01.2018, the State Commission has allowed the complaint and directed OPs to pay sum of Rs. 5,09,288/- to the complainant.

8.       Appellant(s) in FA/675/2018 have challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The judgment dated 30.01.2018 lacks merit and deviates from both legal principles and factual circumstances, warranting its annulment. The complaint, in accordance with the Consumer Protection Act, should have been deemed not maintainable as it pertains to an issue falling outside the Act's purview. The released amount was under the direction of the Hon'ble Court in a sub-judice matter. The definitions within Sec. 2 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, including "Complaint," "Complainant," "Consumer dispute," and "Deficiency of Service," do not align with the facts of this case. The evidence presented before the District Forum was disregarded. The Power of Attorney was attested by the office of the Public Guardian. The complainant's daughter issued a notice dated 05.03.2015, citing the complainant's Memory Loss Symptoms. A letter from the Hospital Authorities in Ward End, Birmingham, UK, affirming the complainant's mental ill health, was provided. Consequently, the State Commission's dismissal of proof of the complainant's unsoundness of mind or incompetence to execute the Power of Attorney in favor of the daughter was erroneous.

2. The State Commission failed to consider the valid reasons for withholding or delaying the payment, attributing it solely to disputes within the complainant's family and legal guardianship issues. Legal notices and copies of FIRs were issued regarding these familial disputes. Moreover, the State Commission overlooked the bank's conduct of withholding the transfer of FCNRs until the resolution of the ongoing dispute. The Commission disregarded instances where the complainant arrived with both his son and daughter separately, requesting transfers into different accounts, which raised suspicion of potential fraudulent transfers or siphoning of funds by the bank. The consistent stance of the OP Bank to prevent any potential fraud or manipulation due to the pending disputes between the complainant's son and daughter, compounded by the complainant's illness and alleged coercion in executing documents, was not acknowledged by the State Commission.

3. The State Commission's assertion that the OP Bank assured the tracing and informing of original records to the complainant over the phone lacks substantiation. Their observations on the potential transfer of the amount to an NRI Account, instigated by Pritpal Singh and Gursewak Singh, don't align with the actual pleadings of the Complainant's case. The subsequent request by the Complainant for the transfer to a different account arose due to evolving disputes among the Complainant's Legal Representatives. The State Commission's conclusion that the delay in payment constituted an unfair trade practice lacks grounding, given the Complainant's varying positions and representations. The Commission erred in holding the OPs accountable for compensating the Complainant for expenses related to document preparation, as there was no special documentation involved, and the proceedings halted from the Complainant's family disputes due to his ill health.

4. The awarded compensation for flight tickets and the pound value in Indian Rupee fails to consider Orvinder Kaur Saggu's dispute with the Complainant's son, placing sole blame on the OP Bank. The incurred legal fees were a result of the Complainant's inconsistent positions and ongoing disputes, not the responsibility of the OP Bank, thus should not be attributed to them. The Complainant's claim for compensation for loss of income due to FCNR encashment and loss of interest lacks merit as these losses occurred independently of any fault by the OP Bank. The State Commission's decision to award expenses for Hotel Stay and compensation for mental and physical distress due to the delay in encashing FCNRs by the OPs, without the fault of the OP Bank, raises questions.

9.       Appellant in FA/1632/2018 has challenged the Order of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

1. The expenses incurred by the complainant for post and notarization of documents, associated with the filing of the civil suit CWP 20273/2015, shouldn't be dismissed. The documentation dates of 22.06.2015 and 23.06.2015 clearly signify their relevance to the civil suit filed on 11.08.2015. Denying compensation for these costs would be unlawful. The full costs of 24.70 (post) + 150 (notarization) British Pounds, totaling 174.70 British Pounds (equivalent to Rs. 15,723/-), should rightfully be awarded to the complainant. Regarding the travel expenses incurred by the complainant due to staying in India, which was necessitated by the unfair trade practices and service deficiencies by the OP, compensation should be granted. Despite representation by an advocate, her personal presence was still demanded, involving three trips to India. Each time, she had to extend her stay due to the OPs’ actions, detailed in the complaint. These expenses include flight tickets purchased until 18.07.2016 (4970.14 British Pounds) and further tickets bought until 04.05.2017 (2080 British Pounds), totaling 7050.14 British Pounds (equivalent to Rs. 6,34,512/-). Therefore, both the expenses related to document handling and the substantial travel costs incurred by the complainant due to the circumstances created by the OPs should be rightfully compensated.

2. The State Commission's decision to award compensation solely for one journey ticket of the attorney while denying others, as calculated, appears illegal and arbitrary. Furthermore, the Commission should have recognized the costs related to extending the visa and accommodation in Delhi, considering these expenses are interconnected. The expenses for visa extension (Rs 16,799/-) and accommodation (Rs 30,000/-) sum up to Rs 46,799/-. Similarly, the rejection by the State Commission of Orvinder Kaur Saggu's loss of income due to her extended stay in India, resulting from the OPs' unfair trade practices and service deficiencies, seems illegal and arbitrary. Her calculated loss of income amounts to Rs. 40,97,926/-. Additionally, the complainant should have been rightfully compensated for the difference in interest and penalty resulting from early encashment by Mr. Deepak Bansal. The interest calculated for both FCNRs totals 2,786.70 British Pounds (equivalent to Rs. 2,52,525/-).

3. The expenses incurred by the complainant, an elderly and ailing individual, in taxi fares for multiple journeys to the Canara Bank Goraya Branch and Head Office in Jalandhar, along with airport travels during landing, should not have been excluded. These costs, amounting to Rs. 76,061/-, were a direct result of the Bank's unfair and deficient trade practices, which forced the complainant to incur them unnecessarily. Regarding the lawyer's fees, the State Commission recognized the entitlement of the complainant to lawyer fees, acknowledging the receipts submitted. However, there seems to be a discrepancy as the moneygram receipts for lawyer fees paid to Adv. S.P. Soi were not included. The total lawyer fees, considering the receipts via moneygram and additional fees for settling the Consumer Case after its filing, sums up to Rs. 2,94,939/-. Moreover, the State Commission's oversight in assessing the situation regarding the Bank's insistence on dealing only with the complainant and not his daughter, despite receiving the Lasting Power of Attorney, led to the complainant's continued personal involvement in the case. Considering the complainant's advanced age and health condition, it was impractical and inconvenient to leave him alone in India. Therefore, the Commission's observation regarding the daughter's role and necessity of her presence seems inaccurate in light of the Bank's refusal to cooperate with anyone other than the complainant.

4. That the actions of Mr. Deepak Bansal in returning correspondence sent by the complainant and his legal representative indicate potential dishonesty regarding the handling of the complainant's funds. This situation compelled the complainant and his daughter to remain in India, fearing the loss or misappropriation of their funds by the Bank. The refusal of full accommodation costs, considering their extended and compulsory stay in India due to the OP Bank's deficient service and unfair practices, is unjust. The State Commission's grant of only Rs. 50,000/- for accommodation costs is inadequate. The full expenses, totaling Rs. 7,90,710/-, should be rightfully compensated. Moreover, the expenses incurred by the complainant, such as the State Commission fee of Rs. 4,000/-, and the mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant and his wife, requiring urgent medical treatment, should be taken into account. The initial grant of Rs. 1 lakh for the mental and physical harassment faced by the complainant appears insufficient, and an additional amount of Rs. 15 lakhs should be considered to adequately compensate for these hardships. The total balance of compensation and damages that remain ungranted by the State Commission, as calculated, amounts to Rs. 69,22,485/-. This comprehensive sum should be awarded to the complainant as rightful compensation for the various hardships and losses suffered due to the OP Bank's actions.

Top of Form

10.     Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the FAs, based on their FAs/Replies, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

1. The counsel for OP presented the argument that the complainant had deposited 19,000 British pounds in FCNRs with the OP bank, scheduled to mature on specific dates in 2009, with an automatic renewal clause carrying prevailing interest rates. In January 2015, the complainant, accompanied by family members, visited the bank with the intention to encash the FCNRs and remit the amount to a UK bank account (Barclays Bank in Birmingham). During a visit in February 2015, the complainant informed the bank about an ongoing dispute with his daughter. In response, the OP bank issued a legal notice, stating that the account was frozen due to the family dispute, done to safeguard the complainant's interests. On 05.03.2015, the daughter served a notice claiming that the complainant suffered from memory loss symptoms. On 20.03.2015, the complainant requested a transfer to his Barclays Bank account, subsequent to an earlier transfer to his NRE account. However, due to inter-family disputes and the unavailability of original FCNR documents, the transfer could not be completed. On 26.03.2015, the OP bank communicated to the complainant and his daughter that they would process requests only after the dispute was settled in court, specifying that without resolution and the presentation of original FCNR documents, they couldn't proceed with the transfer.

2. The counsel for OP further contended that the complaint lodged by the complainant through his daughter was dismissed by the Banking Ombudsman on 22.06.2015. In a related court case (CWP No. 20273/15), a Civil Misc. Application was filed on 13.05.2016, seeking modification of an earlier order. This application was allowed, resulting in the transfer of the amount to the complainant's NRE account as per the High Court's order dated 13.05.2016. The counsel argues that the complaint was not legally maintainable as it was submitted through the daughter without proper legal authority, considering the complainant's unsound mental state since 2008. They assert that the complaint should have been filed through a Legal Guardianship Certificate issued under the National Trust Act, 1999, or the Mental Health Act, 1987. The counsel claims that the complainant concealed material facts regarding his family structure, particularly about having two marriages and children from both marriages. They contend that the complainant was of unsound mind and incompetent to execute the power of attorney in favor of his daughter, supported by a letter from Hospital Authorities in Birmingham, UK, attesting to the complainant's mental health issues.

3. The counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant, accompanied by his daughter, visited India and instructed OP-4 to encash his FCNRs and transfer the funds to his Barclays Bank account in Birmingham, UK. OP-4 claimed an inability to locate the original records or the file related to the complainant's FCNRs, despite multiple visits over six weeks. Subsequently, OP-4 refused the complainant's request, citing the frivolous pretext that Pritpal Singh (son from the 1st marriage) and Gursewak Singh were making claims. The counsel emphasized that during his lifetime, no one, including his son, could have any right or claim to his FCNRs. On 20.03.2015, the complainant sent a letter of request and documents to transfer/remit the amount in the FCNRs to his bank account in Birmingham. When there was no action from OPs, a legal notice was issued on 31.03.2015. In April 2015, the complainant filed a complaint with the Ombudsman, providing details and a registered serial number.

4. The counsel for the complainant asserted that despite sending letters to OPs, OP-4 refused to accept the registered post. The bank's central office (OP-H.O) failed to provide appropriate redressal, leading to the complainant and his daughter being constrained to stay in India for an extended period due to the unresolved issues. Furthermore, the counsel emphasized that the complainant received a reply from the Banking Ombudsman, indicating that OP Bank claimed the complainant hadn't produced the original FCNR receipts and that the guarantor of the indemnity bond was unknown to the bank. Despite having submitted the required indemnity bond, OP-4 (Deepak Bansal) misled the Ombudsman by falsely claiming that the original FCNRs were unavailable. Additionally, the complainant informed the Ombudsman via email that OP-4 deliberately refused to update his address details and information about the Barclays Bank account, which were provided in January 2015, and these details were not updated in the records.

5. The complainant, encountering inaction and alleged unfair trade practices, resorted to the Hon'ble High Court via writ petitions (CWP 8871/2015 and CWP 20273/2015) seeking redressal. In an affidavit by OP-4 Deepak Bansal, OPs admitted receiving the original FCNR certificates and crediting the amount to the complainant's savings account. Subsequently, the conversion of currency from British Pounds to Indian Rupees occurred without the complainant's explicit consent. OPs also raised a contentious claim suggesting familial disputes as a reason for the FCNR amounts not being encashed. On 28.04.2016, the Hon'ble High Court ruled in favor of the writ petition, affirming the complainant's entitlement to the FCNR amounts, given the power of attorney bestowed upon his daughter. The High Court directed OPs to transfer the sum to the complainant's Barclays Bank account in the UK. The complainant faced financial losses and incurred travel between the UK and India due to the actions of OP Bank. A modification request (CMA 5652/2016) was presented before the High Court, seeking the transfer of the amount to Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi, which was granted. The High Court dismissed OPs' alleged baseless claims in its order dated 28.04.2016, confirming the complainant's right to transfer the FCNR amounts per his instructions.

6. The complainant's counsel further argued that the OPs resorted to deceitful tactics across various stages to obstruct the complainant's rightful access to encash FCNRs and transfer the amounts in British Pounds to his UK bank account. These deceptive actions, coupled with the currency conversion from British Pounds to Indian Rupees conducted without the complainant's explicit authorization, resulted in unjustifiable financial loss and a direct denial of the complainant's entitlement to receive the funds in their original currency. Furthermore, the failure of OPs to update the complainant's address details, despite being provided with accurate information, obstructed the complainant's intentions to repatriate funds for medical treatment in the UK. Actions by OP-4 Deepak Bansal, withholding information and unauthorized currency conversion, distinctly highlight a deficiency in service for which OP-1, 2, and 3 bear vicarious liability. The plea presented by OPs regarding the Legal Guardianship Certificate under the National Trust Act 1999 and Mental Health Act 1987 is baseless and self-contradictory, especially considering the validity of the Lasting Power of Attorney issued by a competent authority in the UK. The complainant incurred both special and general damages, encompassing harassment, mental and physical distress, alongside additional expenses for legal fees, notarization of documents, and postage, involving costs in Indian Rupees for lawyer fees, notarization in English Pounds, and postage.

11.     We have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 30.01.2018 of the State Commission, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties. State Commission has duly, appropriately and correctly addressed the preliminary objections raised by the OPs that complainant is not of sound mind since 2008 and accordingly the power of attorney (POA) dated 24.11.2014 issued by the complainant in favour of his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu is not acceptable and therefore complaint filed by Ms. Kaur is not maintainable and held that there is no evidence that the complainant is of unsound mind and was incompetent to execute the POA in favour of his daughter and that there is no requirement of having the Legal Guardianship Certificate from the National Trust Act 1999. State Commission has observed that ‘as held by Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 28.04.2016, the amount has already been transferred in favour of the Complainant on the basis of order passed by the High Court in CWP 20273/2015. It has also been held in that judgement “that it is the amount of the complainant deposited by him and during his lifetime no Legal Heir has any right to deal with that amount and that the complainant is the sole owner of the amount and has a right to get it transferred according to its instructions, therefore we do not see any substance in the objection raised by the counsel for the OPs that amount could not be transferred in favour of the complainant due to inter–se dispute between the relatives of the complainant”

12.     State Commission further observed in its order :

“The OPs in its reply admitted that the complainant visited the OP Bank in January, 2015 but at that time the record was not traceable and complainant was assured to inform on his mobile phone as and when the record of the case is traced. Then it has been stated that original FCNRs were not available with the complainant and DDR was got registered by Pritpal Singh against the complainant. In reply to the legal notice of the complainant, it was stated that the matter is sub-judice and the Branch will proceed to request only after the dispute in the Court is settled. But on the other hand, it has been stated that FCNRs were redeemed on the request of the complainant on 23.02.2015. The copies of the FCNRs are Exs. OPs-3 and OPs-4, these are copies of the original, which were closed on 23.02.2015 and were transferred to his NRI saving bank account but when the counsel for the OP was confronted that as per the request of the complainant dated 20.3.2015, he had requested to transfer this amount in his account to Barclays Bank (UK) having A/c No. 43974642 and where are the instructions of the complainant to transfer this amount to his NRI account, if any. The counsel for the OP candidly admitted that there is no request by the complainant to transfer his FCNR amount to NRI Account and this fact stand fortified by the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 20273 of 2015, decided on 28.04.2016. In this regard, the reply filed by the OP before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No 20273 of 2015 dated 24.04.2016 is relevant. It has been submitted that now the petitioner has submitted the original FCNRs to the respondent Bank, thus, there is no dispute pertaining to the order dated 22.06.2015, which is clearly against their record because they had closed the FCNRs on 23.02.2015 and transferred the amount to NRI account of the complainant without any intimation to the complainant. Therefore, the plea that original FCNRs were not submitted to the OPs is just an excuse to create the defence.

It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant filed an affidavit dated 28.04.2015 which have been produced by OP as Ex. OP-8 in which it has been mentioned that during his stay with Pritpal Singh his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu used to go to counsel and consult lawyers at Nakodar and Jalandhar and behind her back Pritpal Singh got signed an affidavit from him on 28.01.2015 under pressure and threat to his life and got the same attested on 30.01.2015 with regard to his accounts and FCNRs in Canara Bank, Goraya Branch. Similarly on 06.02.2015, he was made to sign another affidavit by Gursewak Singh under pressure and threat to his life.

Therefore, possibility of transferring the amount of the complainant to NRI Account at the instance of Pritpal Singh and his son Gursewak Singh cannot be ruled out. From the above discussion, it is clear that from January, 2015, the complainant had been approaching the OP to transfer his FCNRs amount in his account in Barclays Bank (UK) and written request dated 20.03.2015 was submitted to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mahal Goraya Branch Ex. C-5 but the OP did not transfer the amount as per the instructions of the complainant, rather, the amount was transferred to his another NRI account without any instructions and without any intimation to the complainant on 23.02.2015. Reply to the legal notice was given on 10.05.2015 wherein it was stated that you are advised to direct your client to file a suit before the Competent Court of Law and if your client is entitled to any amount of Swaran Singh Saggu, who is still alive and visiting the Bank regularly and was advised to withdraw the notice. The legal notice was served by his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu on the basis of Power of Attorney, therefore, she was entitled to serve this notice but in this notice it has not been referred to that the amount was already transferred in his NRI Account. In case it would have been stated so he could make another request to transfer this amount to his account in Barclays Bank at Birmingham (UK) but for the reasons known to the OPs, they advised the complainant to go to the Court of Law to get this amount and ultimately, with the intervention of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 20273 of 2015, it was ordered to transfer the amount in U.K. account of the complainant, therefore, in case OPs would have been clear to the facts, the complainant was fully entitled to get this amount but the payment was denied for one reason or the other without any legal basis, therefore, unnecessarily the complainant has been constrained to go to the Court of Law to get his lawful amount from the OPs, which not amounts to deficiency in service but unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.”

13.     Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission held that there is deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. The State Commission has passed a well-reasoned order and we tend to agree with its findings on this.

14.     As regards quantum of compensation, the complainant has demanded a total compensation of Rs. 67,78,449/- as per following broad details:-

1. 40,007.41 pounds or its equivalent in INR Rs. 34,00,629

2. Rs. 8,77,820 on various counts

3. Rs. 25 lakhs as general damages

Item wise details of these have been given by the State Commission in para 9 of its order. State Commission considered the eligibility of claim under difficult items and decided that complainant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,09,288/- only, as per following details

GBP 970 X 88          = Rs. 85,360/-

GBP 384.40 X 88     =Rs. 33,827/-

GBP 967.06 X 88     =Rs. 85,101/-

                                  =Rs. 2,04,288/-

Lawyers Fee               =Rs. 1,55,000/-

Hotel Stay charges      =Rs. 50,000/-

Compensation            =Rs. 1,00,000/-

                                   =Rs. 5,09,288/-

In this regard, State Commission has observed as follows:-

“With regard to post from UK and notarizing documents, in case the documents were required in connection with encashment of the FCNR, those were required then the OPs are not liable to compensate the complainant with regard to payment made by the complainant in connection with preparation of these documents, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any special damages with regard to these damages. With regard to amounts spent on flight tickets, once the complainant had nominated and appointed his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu as Special Power of Attorney and only she was required to come to India and she has been pursuing the case with regard to payment of FCNR with the OPs, therefore, for one time she was required to come to India and in case due to delay on the part of OPs, she had to leave India and come again, the complainant can be awarded compensation GBPs 970 and today's pound value in Indian Rupee is Rs. 88/-. In case the complainant has come to India, it was not necessary once he had appointed his daughter as Special Power of Attorney. In case he came to India for any other purpose then the OPs are not liable to pay this amount to the complainant.

10. With regard to Lawyers fee, receipts have been placed that she has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- Ex. C-20/31 to Advocate S.P. Soi and Rs. 50,000/- have been paid to Mr. P.K. Jain, Advocate. Therefore, in all she will be entitled to Lawyers fee as Rs. 1,55,000/-. The OPs are not liable to make deficiency of income of Orvinder Kaur Saggu because she could go back to the country and the case was being pursued through their Advocate. With regard to loss of income suffered in encashment, the FCNR is 384.40, GBP 967.06 in the 2^nd FCNR, therefore, the complainant will be entitled to this amount on account of loss of loss of interest. This fact has not been denied by the OPs in their reply to para No. 25. Again the OPs are not liable to pay for Visa extension, dental treatment, medicines, clothes and laundry etc., however, some reasonable expenses for stay in the Hotel are to be given, which are tabulated to Rs. 50,000/-. Apart from that, a sum of Rs. 1 Lac is granted to the complainant on account of mental and physical harassment, on account of delay in encashing the FCNRs by the OPs.”  

15.     We are in broad agreement with above stated observations/findings of State Commission except on the quantum of compensation of Rs. 1.00 lakh. At the time of filing the complaint in December 2016, the complainant, an NRI, a British citizen, was aged about 88 years, suffering from various ailments. If at this age someone, who is settled abroad, for last about 60 years does not get back his own legitimate money from the bank in his home country where he has put it in fixed deposits, one can understand the pain and mental agony undergone by such person. We are in agreement with the contentions of complainant that OPs have unreasonably and unfairly delayed the matter in respect of transfer of FCNR deposits of Complainant, due to which, the complainant had to even approach the Hon’ble High Court for reliefs. OPs, knowing fully well that said FCNR deposits have been encashed on 23.02.2015, kept complainant in dark even when a written letter dated 20.03.2015 was given to OP-3/OP-4 for transferring the amount of FCNR to his UK account and subsequent issuance of legal notice dated 31.03.2015. The complainant in its affidavit evidence before the State Commission has specifically stated that he was a British Citizen and had specially came to India in January, 2015 for that purpose and had to return in February 2015 and that the FCNR money required to be transferred to his account in UK was to be utilized for private medical treatment for himself and his wife, who had undergone life-saving brain surgery in November 2014 in UK. OP-3/OP-4 also gave incorrect report to the Banking Ombudsman that Complainant has not produced original FCNR deposits and indemnity bond while the said FCNR had already been encashed on 23.02.2015.

16.     The complainant had brought the wrongful acts on the part of OP-4 to the notice of OP-1/OP-2 through various communications, but no concrete steps were taken by the senior authorities of the bank to properly address the grievances of the complainant. The OP-3/OP-4 converted the FCNR deposit to INR by transferring to Saving Bank account of the complainant, without consent of Complainant. It was only when Hon’ble high Court allowed the Writ petition and issued directions to OPs to transfer the amount covered by said FCNR to account of Complainant in UK, which was subsequently modified as per order dated 28.04.2016 of Hon’ble High Court to transfer the amount to the account of Complainant in Kotak Mahindra Bank New Delhi, that the complainant got the desired relief of getting his money transferred from OP-3 bank. Hence, this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, entitling complainant to a reasonable amount of compensation in addition to reliefs for actual losses.  

17.     It was held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512 “The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done.”

18.     In view of the foregoing we are of the considered view that compensation of Rs. 1 lakh (out of total of Rs. 5,09,288/-) awarded by the State Commission is very meagre and complainant definitely deserve to get a much higher compensation for the mental agony and hardship at this age. Accordingly, partially modifying the order of the State Commission with respect to quantum of compensation, we enhance the amount of compensation from Rs. 1 lakh awarded by the State Commission to Rs. 5 lakhs. Accordingly we direct OPs to pay a total sum of Rs. 9,09,288/- (Rs. 4,09,288/- awarded by State Commission on various items, except compensation and Rs. 5 lakhs towards compensation) along with a litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/- in connection with present FA to be paid to complainant by OPs. Amount of Rs. 9,09,288/- shall be payable along with Interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. date of order of the State Commission i.e. 30.01.2018, along with litigation cost of Rs. 25,000/-. All payments to be made by OPs to complainant within one month of this order, failing which amount due as on expiry of one month of this order shall carry interest @12% p.a. Liability of OP-1 to OP-4 shall be joint and several.

19.     Accordingly FA/1632/2018 filed by the complainant before State Commission is allowed with above reliefs/directions to OPs and FA/675/2018 filed by OPs before State Commission, seeking setting aside of order of State Commission is dismissed.   

20.     The pending IAs, in both the FAs, if any, also stand disposed off.