STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                First appeal No.459 of 2018

Date of the Institution: 16.04.2018

Date of Final hearing:02.03.2023

Date of pronouncement:28.03.2023

1. Axis Bank Limited property No.149-I, Block 11, Khanna Motor Building Opposite Grain Market, Manav Vihar, Hissar Road, Ambala City.
2. Branch Manager, Axis Bank Limited Property No.149-I, Block 11, Khanna Motor Building Opposite Grain Market, Manav Vihar, Hissar Road, Ambala City.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Gurpreet Singh aged 28 years S/o Sh.Manmohan Singh R/o H.No.45, Court Road, Ambala, Haryana being proprietor of firm C.S.N.K. Enterprises.

….. Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mr. Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

Present:-    Mr.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr.Ranjan Arora, Advocate for the respondent.

O R D E R

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

ICICI Bank -Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Commission”)  vide which the complaint was allowed and directed the OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.

2.      The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the registered  proprietorship firm CSNK Enterprises and deals with Govt. tenders and contracts on regular basis. The PMO/Civil Surgeon Ambala has invited short term tender for outsourcing of cleaning & Sanitation services at Civil Hospital Ambala City subject to reservation that amount of Rs.one lac has to be deposited in the shape of FDR and was in the name of EMD Principal Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Ambala for a period of one year.  The complainant transferred Rs.one lac from its account. The OPs prepared the FDR and complainant filed minimum 49.20 P lowest rate per sq. mtr of 11667 sq. mtr. for providing man power and believing the version of OPs the FDR was in the name of EMD, Principal Medical Civil Hospital,  Ambala. The complainant filled the tender document alongwith FDR but same was rejected on the ground that FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- lac was not actually FDR rather same was handed over by the OPs to the complainant as only receipt instead of FDR and also not in the name of Principal Medical Civil Hospital. Due to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs the tender has to be allotted to complainant got rejected by PMO  causing loss to the tune of Rs.50/- lacs.  OPs had provided FDR dated 11.07.2016 to the complainant. The OPs bank released the mistake vide letter dated 12.07.2016 and accepted that due to some technical error  in system they were unable to issue FDR receipt to the customer but system had printed advice receipt having details EMD principal  Medical officer Civil Hospital, Ambala. Thus there being deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complaint.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written statement and alleged that FDR was prepared by the OPs as per request of the complainant on filing of application dated 04.07.2016 in the name of Principal Medical Civil Hospital for preparation of FDR, therefore the bank was not at fault.  As per his request, advice receipt was issued. The bank was not liable for the wrong of the complainant himself.  The complainant approached the OP with the request to make demand draft on 02.07.2016 for Rs.one lac and thereafter requested to cancel the demand draft. The FDR dated 11.07.2016 was prepared on the request of the complainant himself in the name of Principal Medical officer Civil Hospital, Ambala.  Thus there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and prayed for dismissing the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short “District Commission”) partly allowed the complaint and relief mentioned in para No.1 of the order.

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, OPs-appellants have preferred this appeal.

6.      The argument has been advanced by Mr.R.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants as well as Mr. Ranjan Arora, Advocate for the respondent. With their kind assistance the entire records of the appeal has been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is not disputed that the  PMO, Civil Surgeon Ambala had invited in short term tender for outsourcing of cleaning and sanitation services at Civil Hospital, Ambala city subject to some reservations.  It is also not disputed that the complainant has transferred Rs.One lac  from his account.  It is also not disputed that the tender document was to be deposited upto 4^th July, 2016 alongwith FDR in the name of Principal Medical Civil Hospital, Ambala.  It is also not disputed that the complainant prepared the FDR on 12.07.2016.  As per his request, the bank has issued him a advise receipt.  Perusal of the file shows that the hospital has rightly rejected the tender of the complainant.  Annexure C-4 admitted that due to some technical error in our system we were unable to issue the FDR receipt to the customer but system printed advice was issued to the customer regarding the FDR details on which Principal Medical Civil Hospital Ambala was not mentioned.  Perusal of the file shows that the FDR was issued in favour of the complainant on 12.07.2016, whereas last date of tender alongwith requisite documents and amount was to be deposited upto 04.07.2016, however, technically the amount was not deposited in the shape of FDR.  It is the responsibility of the complainant to prepare FDR before the last date of tender.  No doubt, the complainant could not perform the contract and he must have earned profit from this tender.   The bank has admitted that due to technical error, FDR was not printed. In view of the above, there was no occasion for the learned District Commission to direct the OPs to make the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation alongwith 9% interest.  Nothing has been said by learned District Commission as to how and what rationale was adopted to arrive at this figure. Hence, this opinion taken by the learned District Commission does not qualify the legal scrutiny of this Commission. Hence, the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 is set aside.  The complainant is only entitled to Rs.20,000/- as compensation instead of Rs.2,00,000/-. With this modification, the appeal stands disposed of.

8.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification.

9.      Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

10.              A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

11.              File be consigned to record room.

28th  March, 2023   Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member                            

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)