PER MR PREM NARAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The present revision petition has been filed by the Reserved Bank of India (‘in short ‘the RBI’) against the order dated 27.07.2018 of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 235 of 2012.

2.    The brief facts of the case are that Respondent no.1 (Employees Provident Fund Organisation) had to pay a sum of Rs.6,690/- towards PF Account to the respondent no.2/ complainant for which he had sent two cheques dated 17.08.2009 to respondent no.2 (ICICI Bank), dispatched on 19.08.2009 to be credited in the savings account of the complainant. However, the same was not credited in complainant’s account. Subsequently, complainant sent legal notice dated 04.12.2009 to both the OPs, however, reply has been received from OP No.1 and no reply was received from OP no.2. The District Forum allowed the complaint against both the OPs. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the State Commission vide its order dated 27.07.2018 has passed the following order:

“In the result, the appeal is partly allowed whereby the portion of the order passed by the District Forum, Coimbatore, in respect of quantum of compensation is confirmed, however the responsibility is fixed for deficiency of service against both the opposite parties. Hence both the opposite parties are jointly to pay the sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency of service and Rs.1000/- towards the litigation cost as decided by the District Forum. Accordingly out of the compensation and cost of Rs. 11,000/-, Rs.5500/- shall be paid by the appellant/ first opposite party and Rs.5500/- shall be paid by the second respondent/second opposite party to the first respondent/complainant.

The entire amount shall be paid by the opposite parties, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a, from the date of default, till the date of realization.

We made it clear that in case of non-compliance, the first respondent/complainant is also given liberty to execute the order U/S 25 and 27 of Consumer Protection Act against the opposite party/parties committing default.

No order as to cost in the appeal.

The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the larger interest of safe-guarding the rights of the consumers who are the customers/account holders in various banks, in the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, directs the Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to address the chief executive of Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, to issue suitable circular to all the banks to provide a portion as counter foil in the cheque leaves and also issue receipts with the initial of any staff and seal of the bank, when pay-in-slip relating to any DD/cheque is presented by any account holder, who is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This direction is issued as the rights of the consumer shall be safe guarded and unfair trade practice followed by the banks shall be prevented in view of the noble intention of the parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further observed that the direction given in the order shall be complied with by the authorities concerned, within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise any affected consumer would be at liberty to approach the Commission , to invoke the penal provisions under the Consumer Protection Act for disobedience of the order and violation of the Consumer Protection Act”.

3.    Hence, the present revision petition.

4.    The present revisionist - RBI has filed the present revision petition in respect of the directions given to the Chennai office of the RBI as mentioned in the impugned order.

5.    Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the admission stage. Though the present petitioner was not a party before the District Forum in complaint or before the State Commission at the stage of appeal, but the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal giving specific directions to the petitioner. As the main parties in the complaint case are not affected by the order of the State Commission relating to the petitioner herein, no notice is being issued to the respondents in the present matter.

6.    Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was not a party in the complaint case, nor the petitioner was impleaded as party at the stage of the appeal, but the State Commission has passed the order against the petitioner herein giving directions to the petitioner to comply with the directions issued by the State Commission. Learned counsel has stated that the State Commission cannot pass any order directing a party which was not a party in the complaint/ suit in the matter. Moreover, the Banking sector has its own set of bodies which take care of the procedural requirements to satisfy the customers’ needs and therefore, the State Commission was not competent to issue any general directions to the petitioner herein in respect of the procedure to be followed for banking requirements.

7.    Thus, the order passed by the State Commission giving directions to the RBI/ petitioner herein is totally without jurisdiction and the same needs to be set aside.

8.    I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have examined the material on record. Clearly, the petitioner herein was not a party before the District Forum in the complaint case or before the State Commission in the appeal. The matter which was raised in the complaint case has already been decided by the District Forum and the State Commission and none of those parties have come in the revision petition. It seems that they have accepted the judgment dated 27.07.2018 passed by the State Commission. The State Commission has given additional directions to RBI for changing certain procedural rules for the benefit of the consumers in the wisdom of the State Commission. As per section 14 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer forum is authorised to pass the following order:

        “14. Finding of the District Forum.—

(1) If, after the proceeding conducted under section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to 1[do] one or more of the following things, namely:—

(a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question;

(b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect;

(c) to return to the complainant the price, or, as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant;

(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party: ⁵⁶ [Provided that the District Forum shall have the power to grant punitive damages in such circumstances as it deems fit;]

[(e) to  [remove the defects in goods] or deficiencies in the services in question;

(f) to discontinue the unfair trade practice or the restrictive trade practice or not to repeat them;

(g) not to offer the hazardous goods for sale;

(h) to withdraw the hazardous goods from being offered for sale;

[(ha) to cease manufacture of hazardous goods and to desist from offering services which are hazardous in nature;

(hb) to pay such sum as may be determined by it, if it is of the opinion that loss or injury has been suffered by a large number of consumers who are not identifiable conveniently: Provided that the minimum amount of sum so payable shall not be less than five per cent. of the value of such defective goods sold or services provided, as the case may be, to such consumers: Provided further that the amount so obtained shall be credited in favour of such person and utilized in such manner as may be prescribed;

(hc) to issue corrective advertisement to neutralize the effect of misleading advertisement at the cost of the opposite party responsible for issuing such misleading advertisement;]

(i) to provide for adequate costs to parties.]”

9.    The order passed by the State Commission in respect of the directions to the RBI is clearly not covered under any of the above clauses. Thus the order giving directions to RBI is beyond jurisdiction of the State Commission, particularly when the RBI was not a party. Moreover, section 14 (1) also clarifies that the order under this Section can only be issued to the opposite party in the complaint case. From this aspect also, no order could have been issued by the State Commission to RBI which was not a respondent/ OP in the complaint case.

10.  Based on the above discussion, the order passed by the State Commission in respect of RBI needs to be set aside, as this is clearly without jurisdiction.

11.  Consequently, the following portion of the order dated 27.07.2018 passed by the State Commission in First Appeal no. 235 of 2012 is set aside:

“The Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in the larger interest of safe-guarding the rights of the consumers who are the customers/account holders in various banks, in the letter and spirit of the Consumer Protection Act, directs the Registrar of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, to address the chief executive of Reserve Bank of India, Chennai, to issue suitable circular to all the banks to provide a portion as counter foil in the cheque leaves and also issue receipts with the initial of any staff and seal of the bank, when pay-in-slip relating to any DD/cheque is presented by any account holder, who is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This direction is issued as the rights of the consumer shall be safe guarded and unfair trade practice followed by the banks shall be prevented in view of the noble intention of the parliament in enacting the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It is further observed that the direction given in the order shall be complied with by the authorities concerned, within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise any affected consumer would be at liberty to approach the Commission , to invoke the penal provisions under the Consumer Protection Act for disobedience of the order and violation of the Consumer Protection Act”.

12.  Accordingly, the revision petition no. 2789 of 2018 is disposed of.