BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.342 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 11.10.2021

      Date of Decision: 29.11.2023

Col. Vivek Kumar presently posted at Siachen Northern Glacier J&K, through Shri Rajesh Jaswal son of Shri M. S. Jaswal, R/o New Defence Colony, Deep Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s AXIS Bank, SCO 30-31, Guru Ram Das Divine Tower,   Ladowali Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager/Manager.

 2.      M/s AXIS Bank, Malviya Nagar Branch, New Delhi through its        Branch Manager/Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. Rakesh Dhir, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Sukrant Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is working with the Indian Army as Commanding Officer. The complainant went on UN Mission with 9 Sikhli Unit in the year 2013. The Unit had opened an NRI Account for all the soldiers on UN Mission in Axis Bank, Malviya Nagar Branch, Delhi i.e. OP No.2. Since the amount for this UN Mission was to be paid by through UNO and that too in foreign currency. The Unit came back in June 2015 and thereafter the complainant was posted out from there he was sent to Wellington. In 2018 when he checked the account it was closed with the final settlement without any intimation to the complainant or any of his family members. Thereafter the complainant tried his best to be in touch with the Bank and when he was again ordered to serve the country at Siachen Glacier where there is no internet facility, the matter was pursued by his wife through e- mails as well as by personally visiting the OPs No.2 and 3 on number of occasions. After sometime the complainant was informed that at the time of settlement of the account the DD amounting to Rs.4,32,678.86 was sent to 9 Sikhli C/o 56 APO. The complainant through his brother in law Rajesh Jaswal and his wife tried to contact the unit, but no such DD was ever received by the complainant. In January 2019 complainant visited OP No.2 and had personally given an application for re-issue of demand draft for the outstanding amount. Since then the complainant and his wife were waiting for positive response from the OPs No.2 and 3. The complainant has thrice visited the Malviya Nagar Branch, New Delhi after getting leave from his unit and spending huge amount on travelling from his Station of posting to New Delhi, apart from lodging and boarding to get back his hard earned money. The complainant and his wife have personally contacted Ankur Khanna the Branch Head, Mr. Shashank and Ms. Shaveta Nanda who was working as Circle Nodal Officer, New Delhi. That on one of the visit of the complainant Mr. Shashank and the Branch Head has asked the complainant to hand over the documents consisting of an Affidavit of complainant, Indemnity Bond etc. The same were duly handed over by the complainant to the OP Branch at Hazartgang, Lucknow Branch for forwarding the same to Malviya Nagar, Branch. Thereafter, the circumstances were such that the complainant could not check back and he was moved out from Lucknow to Pathankot and moreover the complainant lost his mother in law due to cancer after a long battle of 3 years. The complainant could have been in a better position to provide her better treatment if he was having little more money with him. Hence the complainant is at receiving end since last many years with the OPs. Every time instead of solving the problem and helping the Army man who is posted in a most arduous place of the country, the OP always returned the complainant with one excuse or the other, whereas the Demand Draft, if any, being prepared by the OPs as alleged has never been encashed by anyone nor the same has been delivered to the complainant and as such the said amount is still standing in the account of Axis Bank. The e-mail exchanges between the complainant wife and the bank officials are on record. The OPs No.1 & 2 are carrying on the business activities and are earning a huge profit from the public money. By the above said acts, the OPs have not only been negligent and deficient in their services but in fact have committed unfair trade practice and have rendered deficient and negligent service, by not making the due payment to the complainant whereas the same is standing in their accounts and hence the OPs are unduly enjoying the same at the expense of the complainant. The complainant has suffered a lot of mental tension, agony, inconvenience and harassment and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,32,678.86/- to the complainant being the outstanding amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from 20.01.2018 till the date of its realization. Further, OPs be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- on account of travelling and lodging expenses and to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as damages as claimed above and to pay Rs.25,000/- and to pay Rs.1,46,030/- as interest on the date of filing this complaint and pending interest till the date of realization of the payment.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filed by the complainant just to harass the answering OPs. It is further averred that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the answering OPs to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the complainant has not approached the court with clean hands and has concealed the material facts from this Commission. It is further averred that the complainant is estopped from filing the present application by his own act and conduct. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint, as the matter in question and cause of action is at New Delhi. Moreover, the complainant is not residing at Jalandhar. On merits, it is admitted that    the complainant is an Army Officer and DD amounting to Rs.4,32,678.86 was sent to 9 Sikhli C/o 56 APO per the request of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.      

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                Before imparting with the main issue in dispute, we are constrained to take the legal objection No.6 raised by the OP that this Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint, as the matter in question and cause of action is at New Delhi and the complainant is not residing at Jalandhar, but this contention is not tenable as as per Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which reads as under:-

                   34. Jurisdiction of District Commission.—(1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees:                         Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit.

                   (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

                   (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

                   (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

                   (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

                   (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain.                            (3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time to time.

                   So, as per Section 34 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 this Commission has jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the present complaint.

7.                The counsel for the OP further contended that this complaint is not maintainable as the same has not been filed by the authorized person. The complainant has alleged that the complainant is an Army Officer and this fact is not disputed and further alleged that at the time of filing the present complaint, he was posted at Siachen Northern Glacier J&K. Ex.C-1 is the Aadhar Card of the Rajesh Jaswal who has filed the present complaint and Ex.C-2 is the letter of authority given by the complainant to Rajesh Jaswal to file and pursue and complaint. As per provisions of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint can be filed and pursued by any authorized representative. Authority letter has been proved so, the complaint is maintainable and the same has been filed by duly authorized person.

8.                The complainant has alleged that he had opened an NRI account for all the soldiers on UN Mission in Axis Bank, Malviya Nagar, Delhi i.e. OP No.2 as the amount for this UN Mission was to be paid by through UNO and that too in foreign currency. In 2018, he checked the account and it found that the account was closed with the final settlement without any intimation to the complainant or his family members. He has alleged that he was informed that the DD amounting to Rs.4,32,678.86 was sent to 9 Sikhli C/o 56 APO. This fact has been admitted by the OPs also. The complainant has alleged that this amount was never credited in his account nor he ever received the DD. They tried to contact the unit, but to no avail. The complainant has proved the account statement Ex.C-3, which shows that the amount was withdrawn, but the same was never credited in his account. Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 are the emails sent to the OPs giving in detail about the amount of Rs.4,32,678.86 and intimating that they have not received any DD. The wife of the complainant Ritu Jaswal again sent email to the OP asking them another way as they, being, the army officers and government employees, it is difficult for them to make indemnity bond and guarantors with more than Rs.4,00,000/- in their account as on date. Both the complainants kept on corresponding with the OPs regarding the money back. All the emails Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-12 show the correspondence between the OP and the complainant regarding a non-receipt of money allegedly sent by the OP.

9.                From the above said facts, it is proved that the Unit had opened NRI accounts for all the soldiers on UN Mission in Axis Bank, Delhi i.e. OP No.2 and the amount of Rs.4,32,678.86 was deposited through UNO in the account of the complainant in his saving account, opened on account of UN Mission.

10.              The OP has not proved on record any document to show that DD of Rs.4,32,678.86 was ever sent to 9 Sikhli C/o 56 APO nor there is any document to show this fact nor any intimation to this effect was ever sent to the complainant. The complainant has raised this grudge number of times in his emails. It is not the case of the OP that the amount of Rs.4,32,678.86 has got been encashed, meaning thereby the money is still with the OPs and the OPs cannot retain the amount belonging to the complainant unnecessarily. So, from the overall circumstance, it is proved that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief.

11.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to pay Rs.4,32,678.86 to the complainant being the outstanding amount alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from 20.01.2018 till its realization. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.8000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

12.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

29.11.2023         Member                          Member              President