PER:

Charanjit Singh, President;

1        The present complaint has been received from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Amritsar by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab, Chandigarh for its disposal.

2        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12 and 13 against the opposite party on the allegations that the complainant visited the opposite party No.3 Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar who is authorized agent of opposite party No.4 for the purchase of new i10 car. It is further pleaded that one of the representative of the opposite party No.1 namely Mr.Sumit ( 8528389416 ) met the complainant at Ahuja Automobiles show room and offered for easy finance facility from the opposite party No.1 and after completion of all the formalities, opposite party No.1 sanctioned loan facility to the complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter, the complainant went to M/s.Cosmo Hyundai Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar on 29.7.2016 and deposited Rs.83,500/- with them in cash and asked for the delivery of the car but she was informed that the car was not available at ready hand,  but however, car of the complainant has been booked and will be delivered shortly. The complainant asked the said Mr.Sumit, an executive of the bank to cancel the bank draft/cheque of the sanctioned loan amount as the car was not ready for delivery but that Mr.Sumit reassured her that her sanctioned amount shall be disbursed to the firm Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar at the time of delivery of the car only and receipt of Rs.83350/- was issued to her. It is further pleaded that next month, the complainant learnt from her bank account that EMI of Rs.8501/- has been deducted through ECS and paid to the loan account. The complainant raised objection for the deduction of the amount without delivery of the car and generation of cash memo. The complainant immediately visited the opposite party No.1 and it was asked by the officials of the opposite party No.1 that her interest on the loan shall be started from the date of delivery of the car as the current account of Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar is also with the bank and if any instalments in future is transferred from her saving bank account to her loan account, the same shall be returned to the complainant with interest. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 continued to deduct EMI from the account of the complainant and transferred the same to the loan account of the complainant without delivery of the car and issue cash memo. The complainant kept on visiting Cosmo Hyundai Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar and each time the dealer put off the complainant on one pretext or the other. It is further pleaded that the complainant learnt from reliable sources that Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar was having CC limit account with opposite party No.1 which was on the verge of becoming NPA, therefore, opposite party No.1 intentionally deputed one of the executive of the opposite party No.1 to the showroom of Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar and in connivance with Ahuja Automobiles just to liquidate financial liability of Ahuja Automobiles with the banker of the opposite party No.1, Ahuja Automobiles has been alluring the customers to purchase cars/vehicles from Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar with easy loan facilities from the bank of opposite party No.1 knowing well that those vehicles shall not be delivered to the customers. It is further pleaded that opposite parties were knowing well that the CCI account of Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar has become bad debt and was liable to be declared as NPA, therefore, to transfer the financial liability of Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar to different customers, which not only amounts to deficiency in service but also to defrauding the customers who intend to purchase cars. It is further pleaded that the complainant received letter dated 21.12.2016 from the opposite party No.1 informing her that her case has been transferred to authorised collection agency of opposite party No.2 for the recovery of the loan amount which was never availed by the complainant. It is further pleaded that since the CC limit of Ahuja Automibiles/dealer is also with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 with intention to relieve Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar from interest and financial liability, opposite party No.1 has deliberately and intentionally transferred the loan amount to dealer’s CC limit account, to transfer the interest liability of Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar to the complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice. It is further pleaded that when the complainant found that opposite party No.1 is wilfully deducting an amount of Rs.8501/- every month in the form of EMI against non delivery of the car, she stopped depositing any amount in her saving bank account maintained with the opposite party No.1 and thereafter, the opposite party No.1 referred her case to the recovery agency i.e.opposite party No.2. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 through its muscle man are harassing the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant served a legal notice dated 20.1.2017 but the opposite parties did not bother to give reply to the legal notice. It is further pleaded that due to aforesaid act of the opposite parties, it shows the deficiency on the part of the opposite parties which caused mental agony, harassment to the complainant. Hence, this complaint seeking following reliefs from the opposite parties:-

(i)      Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to desists from mal practice and since the dealers CC limit account is also with opposite parties, therefore, reverse the entry by which the sanctioned amount have been transferred from the loan account of the complainant to the CC limit account of the Ahuja Automobiles and reverse the entry itself and also refund the amount of Rs.34004/- alongwith interest which was deducted/or received by the opposite parties from the complainant in the shape of EMIs on various dates and opposite parties be further directed to return the aforesaid amount to the complainant alongwith up to date interest when the amount was deposited by the complainant till its actual realization.

(ii)     The Opposite Parties may kindly be directed to award compensation to the complainant for causing mental harassment for Rs.50,000/-/.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite parties and opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that complainant is not a consumer as provide under the Act. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and there is no relationship of debtor and creditor between the complainant and opposite party No.1. This Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and same should be tried by the Civil Court. The bank is having legal and valid right to recover the loan amount from the complainant as the credit facility has been disbursed to the complainant.  On merit, it is admitted that the loan was sanctioned at the request of the complainant herself and credit facility has been disbursed on the basis of receipt agreement and application which was duly authenticated by the complainant herself. All the formalities required by the opposite party No.1 were performed by the complainant herself. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 received credit facility application form, identity proofs, address proofs, financial documents and other relevant documents duly authenticated by the complainant which were prerequisite for the processing and disbursement of credit facility. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.1 is not aware if the complainant has visited the Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar. It is denied that the complainant asked Mr.Sumit, an executive of the bank to cancel the bank draft/cheque of the sanctioned loan amount as the car was not readily available and issue/prepaid the new bank draft only when the car is actually delivered. It is pleaded that financier has no role to intervene in the delivery of the car. It is dealing between the customer and dealer and the opposite party No.1 being financier does not intervene the vehicle delivery schedule. It is further pleaded that on receiving facility agreement, loan was disbursed to dealership M/s.Ahuja Automobiles on 30.7.2016. All the payments and cheques were given to the Automobile dealer at the request of the complainant herself. So, the complainant is estopped by her own act and conduct from filing the present complaint against the opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that EMI was rightly deducted and that since the loan facility, as requested by the complainant was disbursed to the dealership M/s.Ahuja Automobiles on 30.7.2016,so the EMI has rightly been deducted and that since after availing loan facility, the EMI has been rightly deducted as per the loan agreement, so the question of raising any objection by the complainant does not arise. It is further pleaded that the complainant visited the office of the opposite party No.1 and information as required by her was given to her. It is denied that the bank officials assured that interest on the loan shall start from the date of delivery of the vehicle. It is further pleaded that the credit facility was disbursed on the receipt of facility agreement and application for the same was duly authenticated by the complainant. It is further pleaded that since the opposite party No.1 has performed its duty efficiently by disbursing the facility as requested by the complainant, so question of raising any objection does not arise. It is further pleaded that since as admitted by the complainant, the loan facility has been disbursed as per the request made by the complainant, so the complainant cannot deny the payments of EMIs on the ground that delivery of vehicle has not yet been made. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1. It is denied that account of the opposite party No.2 with the opposite party No.1 was on the verge of becoming NPA as alleged. It is denied that opposite party No.2 through its muscle powered personnel are harassing the complainant. It is further pleaded that since the loan facility is disbursed to the complainant at her own request, so the complainant has no right to serve notices upon the opposite party No.1. While denying and controverting other allegations, the opposite party No.1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4        The opposite party No. 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer. There are disputed and complicated questions of facts and law involved as per the allegations contained in the complaint, the same cannot be adjudicated by this Commission and requires adjudication from the civil court. The complainant is estopped by her act and conduct in pleading anything contrary to the narration with stipulations on the documents relied upon by her. The complainant has not come to the court with clean hands. On merit, it is pleaded that answering opposite party has got no concern of any sort either with Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar or with any person namely Mr.Sumit. The answering opposite party has got no concern either with the sanctioning, reimbursement of the loan or with the delivery of the car. Answering opposite party has denied the deduction of Rs.8501/- as EMI through ECS and the delivery of the vehicle for want of knowledge. Para No.4 of the written version is denied as the record pertaining to sanctioning of loan and deduction of EMI is with the bank. It is pleaded that the complainant had concocted a false story just to grab the amount illegally from the opposite party No.2. Moreover, after bare reading of the para, one thing is assured that the complainant has no dealing of any sort with the opposite party No.2and all the transactions were between the complainant and opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that the complainant has himself admitted in her complaint that the alleged letter dated 21.12.2016 was received by her from the opposite party No.1 through which she was informed that her case was referred to the authorized collection agency i.e. opposite party No.2. The above fact was denied by the answering opposite party as the opposite party No.2 had never given any authority to the opposite party No.1 to issue any such letter in their name. It is pleaded that opposite party No.2 is the authorized collection agency of opposite party No.1 which deals with soft recovery on behalf of the bank which includes various paper work on behalf of the bank. It is denied that opposite party No.2 through muscle powered personals are harassing the complainant. No legal notice was served upon the opposite party No.2. It is denied that answering opposite party is negligent or deficient. The opposite party No. 2 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same.

5        The opposite party No. 4 appeared through counsel and filed written version and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objection that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party as the complainant has failed to prove that any cause of action arose to file the present complaint against replying opposite party. Present complaint is not maintainable against the replying opposite party as the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it is denied that M/s.Ahuja Automobiles is an authorized agent of replying opposite party. It is submitted that M/s.Ahuja Automobiles was authorized dealer of the replying opposite party (now terminated ) with which replying opposite party deals on principal to principal basis and not on principal to agent. It is further submitted that the aspect of retail sale is strictly interse the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 2 and opposite party No.3. The replying opposite party is not party to such transaction/understanding/agreement and liability of the replying opposite party being the manufacturer of Hyundai vehicles extends and is limited to warranty obligations. Since the complainant has not even purchased the car at the time of filing of complaint, thus, complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint against the replying opposite party. It is denied that opposite party No.3 is agent of the replying opposite party. It is submitted that replying opposite party operates with all its dealers including opposite party No.3 on principal to principal basis and not principal to agent basis meaning thereby that error/omission/misrepresentations etc. if any, at the retailing or servicing of the car by the dealer is the sole responsibility of the concerned dealer. It is further submitted that the complainant had paid money to the opposite party No.3 and Mr.Sumit, executive of the bank gave assurance. Thus, no cause of action arose to the complainant to file the present complaint against replying opposite party. It is submitted that aspect of retail sale is  strictly intense the complainant and opposite parties No.1 & 3 only. Replying opposite party was not party to such aspect of retail sale. It is further submitted that cars are purchased by the concerned dealers such as opposite party No.3 and others from replying opposite party against payment and thereafter, the purchased cars are sold by the dealer to the customers under retail invoice. No money from the sale consideration of the vehicle is paid to the replying opposite party and that cash memo and delivery are all made and issued by the concerned selling dealer and not by the replying opposite party. The opposite party No. 4 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 4 has placed on record affidavit of Varun Panta Ex. OP4/A,  warranty policy Ex. OP4/1, Dealer ship agreement Ex. OP4/2

6        Opposite Party No.3 did not appear despite the fact that service was got effected by way of publication in newspaper, as such, Opposite Party No.3 is proceeded ex-parte.

7        To prove his case, Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered ne evidence affidavit of complainant Ex. CW1/A, copy of summary of account Ex. C-1, copy of the letter Ex. C-2, copy of letter dated 20.1.2017 Ex. C-3, copy of legal notice Ex. C-4, postal receipts Ex. C-5, C-6, copies of loan finance summary Ex. C-7 and C-8, copy of the loan account statement Ex. C-9, copies of e-mail letters Ex. C-10 to Ex. C-15, copies of the photographs Ex. C-16 to C-19, copy of the loan account statement Ex. C-20, copy of loan financial summary Ex. C-21, copy of the repayment schedule Ex C-22, copy of the statement of account Ex. C-23 and C-24 and closed the evidence. On the other hands, Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 1 tendered in evidence copy of loan application Ex. OP1/1, copy of the credit facility application Ex. OP1/2, copy of credit application form Ex. OP1/3, copy of the hypothecation deed Ex. OP1/4, copy of loan schedule Ex. OP1/5, copy of irrevocable power of attorney Ex. OP1/6,. Copy of the estimate specification Ex. OP1/7, copy of name declaration form Ex. OP1/8, copy of payment receipt Ex. OP1/9, copy of invoice Ex. OP1/10, copy of ICN undertaking Ex. OP1/11, copy of the cheque Ex. OP1/12, copy of voucher Ex. OP1/13 and OP1/14, copy of the cheque Ex. OP1/15, copy of ECS form Ex. OP1/16, copy of security mandate Ex. OP1/17 and OP1/18, copy of the key statements Ex. OP1/19, copy of disbursal advice Ex. OP/20 and closed the evidence. The Ld. counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered in evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Mahajan Prop. Ex. OP2/1 and closed the evidence.

8        We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record.

9        The moot question involved in this case is whether opposite party No.4 Hyundai Motors Private Limited can be liable for wrongful act of the opposite party No.3 Cosmo Hyundai Ahuja Limited who are proceeded ex-parte. Case of the complainant is that on 29.7.2016, the complainant went to the opposite party No.3 M/s.Cosmo Hyundai with whom she had already deposited Rs.83350/-. in cash and asked for delivery of the car and she was informed that car was not available right now remaining amount was financed by opposite party No.1.
Since car of the complainant has been booked and shall be delivered shortly. At that time, the complainant asked Mr.Sumit, Executive of the opposite party No.1  bank to cancel the cheque of the loan amount and it will be given only when the car is available. But Sh.Sumit reassured her that her sanctioned amount shall be disbursed to M/s.Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar at the time of delivery of the car only. She also took receipt of Rs.83350/-. However, in the next month, complainant learnt from her bank that EMI of Rs.8501/- has been deducted through ECS and she raised objection how deduction has been made without the delivery of the car. Later on, the complainant also came to know that loan  of Rs.4,00,000/- was sanctioned by ICICI Bank to the complainant after getting her signatures on loan papers. As per the case of the opposite party No.1, the complainant has voluntarily signed the loan papers, hence, she has availed loan facility of the bank and she is liable to return the loan amount. On the other hand, the complainant has pleaded that since no car was delivered to her, question of starting reimbursement of loan amount does not arise. During the pendency of this case, the complainant moved an application under order 1 rule 10 of CPC for impleading manufacturer Ahuja Automobiles, Batala Road, Amritsar and Hyundai Motors India Limited as opposite parties No.3 & 4 to the present case which was allowed by this Commission vide order dated 2.3.2021 and amended complaint was filed. Opposite party No.3 was proceeded ex-parte after completing service through publication as none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.3. However, opposite party No.4 Hyundai Motors India Limited appeared and denied its liability. As stated above, question of liability of opposite party No.4 is determined by documents which are placed on record by the opposite party No.4 itself. Opposite party No.4 has placed on record copy of the dealership agreement ex.OP4/2 which was executed between M/s.Hyundai Motors India Limited and M/s.Ahuja Automobiles meaning thereby it is not disputed that Ahuja Automobiles is not the dealer of Hyundai Motors India Limited and in clause 1 APPOINTMENT OF DEALER of dealership agreement, the dealer accepts its appointment as a non exclusive anthorized HMI DEALER and agree to conduct its business in an ethical manner, which will enhance customer confidence and satisfaction and reflect positively upon HMI. At page 3 in sub clause SINCERITY DEPOSIT “ the dealer agrees to deposit with HMI a sum of Rs. 250000/- ( Rupees Two Lacks and fifty thousand only ) as sincerity deposit operations. HMI will intimate the dealer from time to time the Sincerity Deposit payable by dealer to HMI based on the sales volume of the dealership operations.” In clause 4 DEALER MANAGEMENT AND OWNERSHIP under sub clause Personal Guarantees etc. Directors of the dealer shall be jointly and severally and personally liable to HMI for any dues receivable from the dealer by HMI even after the dealership is terminated notwithstanding their ceasing to hold the office or act in such capacity at the time of termination of dealership.  HMI shall be entitled to require the directors of the dealer to give to HMI their personal guarantees in such form as prescribed by HMI. In addition, HMI shall also be entitled to call for security deposits, sureties, guarantees collaterals etc.from the dealer in respect of HMI’s transactions with the dealer if it is found desirable in the opinion of HMI. The Directors of the dealer agree to indemnify HMI for all losses, damages and costs incurred by HMI in defending itself in any civil or criminal proceedings instituted by any customer or any third parties arising out of the negligence/inaction’s/wrongs etc. on the part of the dealer in respect of transactions carried out by the dealer.

10      Before assessing documents/evidence on merit, it is relevant to reproduce the certain legal terms which are as under :-

DEFICIENCY - The word "deficiency" was defined under section 2(1)(g) of the old Consumer Protection Act,1986. Almost every word from section 2(1)(g) has been retained in this sub section, with an addition of two more clauses. The definition of the same is as under :-

" The complaint under the Consumer Protection Act can be made in respect of only those services which suffer from any deficiency."

The word "deficiency" has been defined to mean any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, purity, potency etc. in the service which the service provider has provided to his consumer. Meaning thereby, the service provider is under an obligation, either under the law or the contract, to maintain quality, quantity, purity, potency etc.in the services, which he is providing to his consumer. Any kind of negligence by the service provider, which causes loss or injury to the consumer is also being called as "deficiency in service". Furthermore, by inclusion of the word "negligence" under the definition of word "deficiency", the legislature has explicitly stated that the acts of "negligence" generally, and in particular, acts of "medical negligence" would be covered under the exhaustive and wide definition.

     A bare reading of documents which are produced by the opposite party No.4 in its written version are self speaking or tell voluminously about the working of the dealer and manufacturer. Act of the dealer also reflects the reputation of the manufacturing company meaning thereby relationship between the dealer and manufacturer differs case to case. In every case, it cannot be said that relationship is between principal to principal as argued by the opposite party No.4 and rather it is a case of relationship between principal to agent. Since dealership agreement suggests that loss is caused due to negligent act of the dealer, the complainant is at liberty to get loss accrued due to act of the dealer recovered from the dealer itself as it is suggested to the MOU of the party. This Commission relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh State  Consumer Redressal Commission in case Krishna Chaitanya Gondi Versus Hill Country Properties Ltd. And others 2014(1) CLT page 549 in which it is held that section 2(1)(d) Flat allotment – Bank Loan – construction not completed and possession not hand over to complainant even after two years by developer – contention of the complainant that he has paid EMIs and interest on the home loan taken from bank – plea of developer that due to less booking of flats it was decided not to commence the construction – bank released the entire loan amount in one go without considering the stages of construction to the detriments of their interests – facts remains that bank released the amounts to the developer contrary to guidelines as well as tripartite agreement to none existent apartment – Therefore, it is a legally open to the bank to take a decision in good faith in the exercise of its bonafide discretion as to whether it was safe to make advances of public funds to any particular party and arrive at a decision after examining the relevant facts and circumstances and held that it is a case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the developers. Hence, complainant has to be compensated. Similarly, this Commission also relied upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2005(3) CPJ 572 wherein it is held that matter of controversy was whether respondent No.2  was authorized dealer of the appellant at the relevant time. Similarly, this Commission also relied upon the law laid by  in 1992 (2) CPJ  that dealer cannot avoid its liability simply on the ground that he was not manufacturer. Similar view is taken by the Hon’ble  2019(2) CLT 104 wherein it is held that manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable to refund Rs.4 lakh. All the judgements as discussed above squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.  

11      The  relationship of opposite parties No.3 & 4 as dealer and manufacturer is not denied. It is admitted fact that it was very in the knowledge of the opposite party No.4 that opposite party No.3 is defaulter and shut their showroom as they were defaulter of ICICI Bank. Complainant has placed on record copies of the e-mail letter ex.C-10 to C-15. Copies of photographs ex.C-16 to C-19 from where it is quite clear that building of the showroom has been seized by ICICI Bank and ICICI Bank in connivance with opposite party No.2 has not only inspite of non delivery of the vehicle has got the loan amount credited to the account of M/s.Ahuja Automobiles opposite party No.3. Ironically, opposite party No.1 has failed to produce any document which shows that they have ever demanded copy of the insurance of the vehicle and copy of the RC from the complainant particularly when they have financed loan against the vehicle. This Commission has no hesitation to rely upon maxim that a man can tell lie but not circumstances. Connivance of opposite party No.1 with opposite party No.3 cannot be ruled out. Hence, this Commission has no hesitation to hold that opposite parties are guilty of deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint is partly allowed and  the complainant is entitled for the following reliefs :-

12      Opposite parties No.1 & 4 are directed to return the loan amount including amount which has been paid by the complainant in cash with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of disbursement of loan till its realization. So far as opposite party No.1 is concerned, it connivance with opposite party No.3 who are proceeded ex-parte is also proved on record. By the fact that opposite party No.1 has not placed any document to prove that opposite party No.1 has  ever demanded the copy of RC of the alleged sold vehicle and copy of insurance etc. Furthermore, record further suggests that RTGS was made by the opposite party No.1 directly in the account of the opposite party No.2, who was defaulter of the same bank. Hence, the connivance of opposite parties No.1 & 3 cannot be ruled out and all the opposite parties No.1,3 & 4 are proved to be guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

13      Since opposite parties No.1,3 & 4 are found guilty for  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service , hence, this Commission has relied upon the ratio of judgement titled as Indian Medical Association Versus VP Shantha & others 1995(6) Supreme Court Cases page 65. Hence, the present case is to be assessed keeping in view the definition of service as defined above. This Commission further relied upon the citation Escorts Ltd. Versus Shivaji Tukaram Patil 2007 NCJ 279 ( NC ) wherein buyer of the tractor is a consumer and filed complaint on account of non delivery of the tractor and sought refund of money which was allowed by the Hon'ble National Commission.

14      To assess  compensation on the opposite party No.1, this Commission is at liberty to provide any relief as there is settled principle of law that  though it has not been claimed by the complainant ‎in his complaint. Keeping in view the gravity of negligence on the part of the opposite parties, this Commission is of the view that opposite parties have caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Hence, reliance is put on the judgement titled as BPTP Ltd. Versus Pardeep Sharma & others 2021(2) CLT 236 of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi wherein it has been held that “xxxxx with regard to the objection of the developer that the complainants are not entitled for the relief other than prayed for in the complaint, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in as well as this Commission in catena of judgements has laid down the principal that in the absence of specific prayer, it is still open to the courts to grant a relief which is appropriate, justified and warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. This Commission also relied upon the latest law on this point of compensation i.e.the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case Amitabha Dasgupta Vs. United Bank of India and others AIR 2021 SC ( Civil ), 1457 wherein it is held that “Deficiency in service – Duty of care should be exercised by bank irrespective of application of laws of bailment to contents of locker – Bank inadvertently broke customer’s locker, without giving prior notice,  inspite of clearing pending dues by him. Bank acted in blatant disregard to responsibilities owned to customer as service provider -  Case of gross deficiency in service – Imposition of costs of Rs.5,00,000/- on bank would be appropriate compensation to customer.

15      In view of above discussion this Commission deems it fit to compensate the complainant with compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and litigation costs to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by opposite parties No.1, 3 & 4 in equal shares. The present complaint against opposite party No.2 stands dismissed.  Opposite Parties No. 1, 3 & 4 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Copy of order be supplied by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar.

Announced in Open Commission

21.09.2022