BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.223 of 2014

Date of Instt. 09.07.2014

Date of Decision :02.09.2015

Roshni aged about 35 years wife of Sahil Adlakha C/o Batra Hospital, Mission Compound, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant Versus

1. ICICI Bank Ltd, through its C.E.O./M.D. Ms.Chanda Kochhar, ICICI Towers, South Towers, Bandra East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai.

2. ICICI Bank Ltd, through its Authorized Representative having its registered office at Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara-39007.

3. ICICI Bank Ltd, through its Authorized Representative, Delta Chambers, Opp.WIMPY Restaurant, Near Bus Stand, Jalandhar.

4. ICICI Bank Ltd, through its Authorized Representative, Main Branch Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties.

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Puneet Sharma Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.YV Rishi Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that earlier complainant was running a business under the name and style of Royal Palace, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. Complainant was the proprietor of said Royal Palace. In the year 1997, the officials of Bank of Madura Limited had approached the complainant for getting a fixed deposit (F.D) in said bank assuring that the bank is providing very good facilities and they promised a very good rate of interest and further assured of providing best of the banking services. Complainant coming under the allurement given by the representatives of Bank of Madura Limited, deposited a sum of Rs.2 Lacs in the Bank of Madura Limited by making fixed deposit dated 3.3.1997 in deposit account No.TD1321 in account No.008215296191. The same was having due date on 10.4.1997 and the rate of interest been agreed at 10%. On its maturity in the year 1997, the complainant got the above mentioned fixed deposit renewed. Now, the said Bank of Madura Limited has been overtaken by the opposite party which was acquired by opposite parties in the year 2001. Ever since then the complainant had been approaching the representatives of opposite parties for redeeming the above mentioned fixed deposit alongwith its entire interest accrued up to date but every time the officials of the opposite parties conveyed to the complainant that because of the merger of the bank the data is not available. Not only this complainant had even written various letters/complaints seeking information regarding the above mentioned fixed deposits since the Bank of Madura Limited was amalgamated with the ICICI Bank Limited, on March 2001, with all the liabilities of the transferor bank were transferred to the transferee bank i.e opposite parties. The complainant was not interested in continuing with the fixed deposit with the opposite parties on account of unfair trade practice and deficient services, complainant has been refrained from redeeming the above mentioned fixed deposit as opposite parties never gave any intimation to the complainant and any information and whereabouts and status of the said fixed deposit. As such the complainant served a legal notice dated 7.1.2014 for unfair trade practice upon the opposite parties as the complainant had suffered huge mental agony and harassment. However, in the said legal notice it was got wrongly mentioned that the complainant is one of the partner of M/s Royal Palace, Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar. The said legal notice was replied by the opposite parties wherein they had asked for supplying of the partnership deed, dissolution deed, if any, which was dated 6.2.2014 bearing reference No.L/009276740/2013-2014. The complainant also sent a rectification/legal notice in continuance to the notice dated 7.1.2014 which was sent through registered post to opposite parties on 21.5.2014 for clarifying the above mentioned fact that the business of M/s Royal Palace, Jalandhar was under proprietorship of the complainant as it is also reflected upon the copy of the fixed deposit wherein the complainant has signed being proprietor of M/s Royal Palace. Thereafter, the opposite parties never replied to the said rectification notice and till date the opposite parties have not redeemed said fixed deposit. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to redeem the above said fixed deposit with upto date interest. She has also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply pleading that complainant with malafide intention to put wrongful pressure on the opposite parties has illegally and in an unlawful manner arrayed in person Ms.Chanda Kochhar, CEO of opposite parties in complaint. The fixed deposit is alleged by the complainant to be made with Bank of Madura, Jalandhar branch which was merged in ICICI Bank Limited in March 2001, when she was neither MD nor CEO of the opposite parties. The complainant has alleged in her legal notice dated 7.1.2014 that she was partner of M/s Royal Palace but did not implead its partners as parties to the present complaint. The complainant is not consumer within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. She claimed herself to be running business and during the course of said business invested its funds in fixed deposit account in the name of M/s Royal Palace and since the funds are invested by a commercial entity during the course of such business it does not come within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as such complaint deserves to be dismissed. The complainant has suppressed the true and material facts to misuse the process of law. The complainant has furnished only photocopy of receipt standing in the name of M/s Royal Palace. The said FDR is a short term FDR and not in the name of Roshni Batra, complainant. Besides address of account holder over the said receipt is Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar and not as Batra Hospital Missionary Compound, Jalandhar. She in her legal notice dated 7.1.2014 claimed herself to be partner of Royal Palace but on calling for documents pertaining to her firm and its present position by the opposite parties through its letter dated 6.2.2014, she totally changed her stand and without any proof claimed herself to be its proprietor. Rather the photocopy produced by her shows lot of cutting over it without any authentications. Further it is apparent from the said photocopy of FDR that it is under lien of the bank. Inspite of requests made by opposite parties through its officials and in writing to the complainant, she is neither providing satisfactory explanation nor furnishing supportive relevant records called for by the opposite parties. Complainant is not producing the original FDR and wrongly alleging that she has sent the original to the corporate office for renewal whereas head office has nothing to do for such renewal, renewal or withdrawal of deposits at Jalandhar is dealt with at branch level at Jalandhar only as the alleged deposit was with Bank of Madura, Jalandhar. As per banking practice renewal or withdrawal of deposit can be made only against original deposit receipt which the complainant never furnished to the opposite parties. As such complainant is suppressing material facts and concocting false and frivolous stories with malafide intentions to make unlawful gains and as such it is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Complaint is absolutely barred by the law of limitation. It is absolutely wrong that after take over the Bank of Madura Limited by opposite parties, the complainant has been approached the opposite party for redeeming impugned fixed deposit alongwith interest but officials of opposite parties have been giving her understanding the data of Bank of Madura is not available with them. Rather in terms of mandatory guidelines of Reserve Bank of India in its notification No.DBOD.No.DEAF Cell.BC.114/30.1.002/ 2013-14 dated 27.5.2014 on account of non furnishing of supportive document and relevant information in respect of her claim by the complainant over the alleged fixed deposit standing in the name of Royal Palace the deposit in it alongwith accrued interest has been transferred to “Depositor Education and Awareness Fund” created under The Depositor Education and Awareness Fund Scheme, 2014 read with section 26A of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 on 30.6.2014. The complainant did not furnish documents and satisfactory clarification and information sought by it vide its letter dated 6.2.2014 to the complainant. Rather after receiving said letter dated 6.2.2014, the complainant in a strange and precarious manner totally changed her stand about constitution of M/s Royal Palace from partnership to proprietorship without any supportive documents. She also did not furnish original FDR to support her claim. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of her complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CW1/a and Ex.CW1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C21 and closed evidence.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP3 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for both the parties.

6. M/s Royal Palace obtained one FDR, copy of which is Ex.C1 on record in the year 1997 for Rs.2 Lacs for 46 days. The reverse of photostat copy of FDR Ex.C1 is totally blank. However, the opposite party bank has produced reverse of the above said FDR as Ex.OP1. The FDR is shown to have been renewed on 28.09.2001 w.e.f 10.4.1997 for a period of six years. This fact is evident from Ex.OP1 i.e the reverse of the FDR. The complainant has not produced original FDR. Counsel for the complainant contended that the original FDR was sent to the opposite party bank through post but opposite party is denying this fact. Counsel for the opposite party bank contended that renewal dated 8.9.2001 was not made by any official of the opposite party bank and it is not known as to who made endorsement regarding renewal of the FDR. The FDR was taken from the bank of Madura Limited which was merged with opposite party bank in March 2001 but above said endorsement regarding renewal of FDR for further period of six years is dated 28.09.2001. The FDR is in the name of M/s Royal Palace and the present complaint has been filed by Roshni wife of Sahil Adlakha. From the perusal of reverse of the FDR Ex.OP1, it is evident that there is endorsement on the reverse of the FDR that as per party request dispute among partners again lien created after renewal. Even on the endorsement regarding lien there is certain over-writing. So as per above endorsement regarding lien there was some dispute among the partners of the firm i.e M/s Royal Palace. The complainant has not produced any document regarding dissolution of the said firm and after dissolution her becoming proprietor of the said firm. On the reverse of FDR no doubt the complainant has described herself as proprietor while making endorsement for renewal FDR for ten years from the date of maturity but on this endorsement no date is mentioned. Moreover this endorsement was made by complainant herself describing herself as proprietor. On the other hand, from the note given on the reverse that as per party there was dispute among partners clearly suggest that earlier M/s Royal Palace was partnership firm. It is not shown when the above said partnership firm was dissolved and who was entitled to the assets and liabilities of the said firm. In case, the complainant was proprietor of M/s Royal Palace then she must have been in possession of some document showing her as proprietor of said firm but no such document was produced. The original FDR is also not available. So disputed question of facts are involved in the present case which can not be effectively decided in the present summary proceedings and for deciding the same detailed evidence and inquiry including examination and cross examination of the complainant is required. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(3) Apex Court Judgment 365 (SC), it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:-

"Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the document (i.e proposal forms) produced by the appellant.

The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.

The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by a appropriate court of law and not by the Commission".

7. The ratio of this authority is fully application on the facts of the present case. In our opinion, for effectively deciding controversy involved in the present complaint, the appropriate forum is civil court.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach civil court or any other appropriate forum for redressal of her grievance. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

02.09.2015 Member Member President