Order by
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. Ms.Dhara Gupta, complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that on 05.09.2016 she alongwith her father approached Opposite Party No.2 for the services of the bank guarantee against FDR for the education purpose, for the admission of MBBS course in the Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda. The Complainant alleges that after oral discussion, Opposite Party No.2 agreed to provide the bank guarantee to the Complainant of Rs.48 lacs against FDR for 5 years course with year to year system for 19 quarters upto the date 30.04.2021 and accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 opened an account in the name of Complainant having its number 3445000100956304. On 08.09.2016 the bank guarantee No. 25260 was issued in favour of Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda by Opposite Party No.2 and an amount of Rs.1,96,650/- charged for the same for all the 19 quarters including its service charges and all other expenses if any and in this way, the Complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant further alleges that due to some family problem, the Complainant could not proceed for the admission and on 03.10.2016 the Complainant surrendered the said bank guarantee to Opposite Party No.2 and requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,96,650/- after deducting nominal charges of one quarter if any. But Opposite Party No.2 harassed the Complainant without any reason and forwarded the refund file of said amount to Opposite Party No.1, whereas it was within the jurisdiction of Opposite Party No.2 and after a long struggle of the Complainant, Opposite Party No.1 instructed to Opposite Party No.2 for the refund of the said amount after deducting the charges of one quarter and thereafter, the Complainant received the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- and an amount of Rs.43,000/- deducted by Opposite Party No.2 without any reason for only one single quarter. Thereafter, the Complainant with her family visited the Opposite Party No.2 and asked about the said unreasonable deduction. At last, Opposite Party No.2 sent reply through e-mail clearing that Opposite Party No.2 has deducted the amount of Rs.43,000/- for two quarters (per quarter Rs.9,000/- an amount of Rs.18000/- and Rs.25,650/- as service tax for all 19 quarters whereas the Complainant availed the services of Opposite Party No.2 for bank guarantee only for one quarter. Whereas Opposite Party No.2 at the time of opening of the saving account and issuing the bank guarantee, it was orally told that bank guarantee will be issued with year to year system and charges will be deducted with same manner. Regarding this guidelines are also issued by Reserve Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, that guarantee can be issued for year to year and charged for the same will be deducted year to year, but here Opposite Party No.2 issued it for 5 years and charged for those five years in one time. It is crystal clear that Opposite Party No.2 knowing that all, committed the fault intentionally. Due to that Complainant suffered pecuniary loss and mentally harassment. The Complainant met many times to the officials of Opposite Parties for the refund of the amount, but the Opposite Parties firstly lingered that matter and at last flatly refused to pay the amount of refund without any reason. Hence this complaint is filed due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- Opposite Parties be directed to refund the amount of Rs.34,650/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of surrender of bank guarantee till its realization and further direct the ops jointly and severally to pay sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental torture agony harassment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. After the notice served upon the Opposite Parties, they appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the Complainant with her father approached Opposite Party No.2 for issuance of bank guarantee against FDR for the education purpose for the admission in MBBS Course in the Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda. The Complainant requested Opposite Party No.2 to provide bank guarantee to the Complainant of Rs.48 lacs against FDR for a period of five years consisting of 19 years upto 30.04.2021 and accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 opened an account in the name of Complainant having its number 3445000100956304. On 08.09.2016 the bank guarantee No. 25260 was issued in favour of Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda by Opposite Party No.2 and an amount of Rs.1,96,650/- was in lieu of its commission and service. Thereafter, on 03.10.2016 the Complainant surrendered the said bank guarantee to Opposite Party No.2 and requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,96,650/- after deducting payable charges in accordance with bank instructions, Opposite Party No.2 deducted an amount of Rs.43,650/- and refunded the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- to the Complainant. The amount of Rs.1,53,000/- refunded to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.2 is a valid and legal refund. No excess amount has been deducted by Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have charged commission for two quarters @ Rs.9000/- per quarter as the said bank guarantee was issued on 8.9.2016 and was surrendered on 3.10.2016. As per the instruction No.8(ii) of Loans and Advances Circular No.39 of the PNB, Part of the quarter is to be treated as one quarter. In the present case, one quarter was w.e.f. 8.9.2016 to 30.09.2016 and next quarter started w.e.f. 01.10.2016. The bank guarantee was admittedly surrendered on 3.10.2016, thus two days in excess of Ist quarter have rightly been treated as one quarter as per above referred instructions of PNB. Hence, Opposite Party No.2 validly, leally and correctly deducted commission of two quarters @ Rs.9000/- per quarter. Secondly, as admitted by the Complainant in the complaint under reply, the Complainant herself had requested for issuance of bank guarantee for a longer period of 5 years, that is why service charges for the period of 5 years were charged which amounted to Rs.25,650/- which was immediately deposited with the government. The amount charged in lieu of service charges is not appropriated towards the bank, but is collected on behalf of the government and said amount of Rs.25,650/- is non refundable. Hence, the Opposite Parties correctly deducted an amount of Rs.43,650/- out of an amount of Rs.1,96,650/-. On merits, the Opposite Parties took up almost same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.
3. In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C1 and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C13 and closed the evidence.
4. On the other hand, Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.J.P.Goyal, Branch Manager Ex.OPs1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OPs2 to Ex.OPs4 and closed the evidence on behalf the Opposite Parties.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties, perused the written arguments filed by both the parties and carefully gone through the documents placed on record.
6. During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the
8. Ld.counsel for the complainant has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint and contended that on 05.09.2016 she alongwith her father approached Opposite Party No.2 for the services of the bank guarantee against FDR for the education purpose, for the admission of MBBS course in the Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda. Further contended that after oral discussion, Opposite Party No.2 agreed to provide the bank guarantee to the Complainant of Rs.48 lacs against FDR for 5 years course with year to year system for 19 quarters upto the date 30.04.2021 and accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 opened an account in the name of Complainant having its number 3445000100956304. On 08.09.2016 the bank guarantee No. 25260 was issued in favour of Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda by Opposite Party No.2 and an amount of Rs.1,96,650/- charged for the same for all the 19 quarters including its service charges and all other expenses if any and in this way, the Complainant is consumer of the Opposite Parties. Further contended that due to some family problem, the Complainant could not proceed for the admission and on 03.10.2016 she surrendered the said bank guarantee to Opposite Party No.2 and requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,96,650/- after deducting nominal charges of one quarter if any. But Opposite Party No.2 without mentioning any detail, has refunded an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- and an amount of Rs.43,000/- retained without any reason for only one single quarter. Thereafter, the Complainant with her family visited the Opposite Party No.2 and asked about the said unreasonable deduction. At last, Opposite Party No.2 sent reply through e-mail clearing that Opposite Party No.2 has deducted the amount of Rs.43,000/- for two quarters (per quarter Rs.9000/- an amount of Rs.18000/- and Rs.25,650/- as service tax for all 19 quarters whereas the Complainant availed the services of Opposite Party No.2 for bank guarantee only for one quarter. Whereas Opposite Party No.2 at the time of opening of the saving account and issuing the bank guarantee, it was orally told that bank guarantee will be issued with year to year system and charges will be deducted with same manner. Regarding this guidelines are also issued by Reserve Bank of India and Punjab National Bank, that guarantee can be issued for year to year and charged for the same will be deducted year to year, but here Opposite Party No.2 issued it for 5 years and charged for those five years in one time. It is crystal clear that Opposite Party No.2 knowing that all, committed the fault intentionally. Due to that Complainant suffered pecuniary loss and mentally harassment. The Complainant met many times to the officials of Opposite Parties for the refund of the amount, but the Opposite Parties firstly lingered that matter and at last flatly refused to pay the amount of refund without any reason.
9. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Complainant and contended that
On the request of the Complainant, the Opposite Parties provided the bank guarantee to her of Rs.48 lacs against FDR for a period of five years consisting of 19 years upto 30.04.2021 and accordingly, Opposite Party No.2 opened an account in the name of Complainant having its number 3445000100956304. On 08.09.2016 the bank guarantee No. 25260 was issued in favour of Adesh Institute of Medical Science and Research Bathinda by Opposite Party No.2 and an amount of Rs.1,96,650/- was in lieu of its commission and service. Thereafter, on 03.10.2016 the Complainant surrendered the said bank guarantee to Opposite Party No.2 and requested for the refund of the amount of Rs.1,96,650/- after deducting payable charges in accordance with bank instructions, Opposite Party No.2 deducted an amount of Rs.43,650/- and refunded the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- to the Complainant. The amount of Rs.1,53,000/- refunded to the Complainant by Opposite Party No.2 is a valid and legal refund. No excess amount has been deducted by Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties have charged commission for two quarters @ Rs.9000/- per quarter as the said bank guarantee was issued on 8.9.2016 and was surrendered on 3.10.2016. As per the instruction No.8 (ii) of Loans and Advances Circular No.39 of the PNB, Part of the quarter is to be treated as one quarter. In the present case, one quarter was w.e.f. 8.9.2016 to 30.09.2016 and next quarter started w.e.f. 01.10.2016. The bank guarantee was admittedly surrendered on 3.10.2016, thus two days in excess of Ist quarter have rightly been treated as one quarter as per above referred instructions of PNB and as such, Opposite Party No.2 validly, legally and correctly deducted commission of two quarters @ Rs.9,000/- per quarter. Secondly, as admitted by the Complainant in the complaint under reply, the Complainant herself had requested for issuance of bank guarantee for a longer period of 5 years, that is why service charges for the period of 5 years were charged which amounted to Rs.25,650/- which was immediately deposited with the government. The amount charged in lieu of service charges is not appropriated towards the bank, but is collected on behalf of the government and said amount of Rs.25,650/- is non refundable and hence, the Opposite Parties correctly deducted an amount of rs.43,650/- out of an amount of Rs.1,96,650/- and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
10. Now the case of the Complainant is that out of the deposited amount of Rs.1,96,650/-, the Opposite Parties have refunded only Rs.1,53,000/- and retained the balance amount of Rs.43,650/- (Rs. 18,000/- i.e. Rs.9,000/- each for two quarters + Rs.25,650/- which the Opposite Parties have retained on account of service tax allegedly paid to Punjab Government), but however, the Complainant has not claimed the refund of Rs.9,000/- on account of charges of first quarter and prayed for the refund of Rs.34,650/- in the relief clause.
11. With regard, to deduction of Rs.9,000/- on account of second quarter started w.e.f. 01.10.2016 and the bank guarantee was surrendered on 03.10.2016. As per the instruction No.8 (ii) of Loans and Advances Circular No.39/2014 of the PNB, Part of the quarter is to be treated as one quarter. Copy of which is placed on record as Ex.OPs2. The relevant portion is reproduced as under:-
ii. Minimum charges for one quarter and a part of a quarter to be treated as one quarter.
On the other hand, the Complainant has nowhere denied these instructions issued by the Opposite Parties and hence as admitted, in the present case, one quarter starts w.e.f. 8.9.2016 to 30.09.2016 (not disputed) and next quarter started w.e.f. 01.10.2016. The bank guarantee was admittedly surrendered on 3.10.2016, thus two days in excess of Ist quarter have rightly been treated as one quarter as per above referred instructions of PNB and as such, Opposite Parties have validly, legally and correctly deducted commission of two quarters @ Rs.9,000/- per quarter.
12. Now coming to the next point of deduction of Rs.25,650/- which the Opposite Parties have retained on account of service tax allegedly paid to Punjab Government. Ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant herself made request for issuance of bank guarantee for a long period of 5 years and that is why service charges for the period of 5 years were charged which amounting to Rs.25,650/- and these service charges were collected by the bank on behalf of the government. But on the other hand, ld.counsel for the Complainant has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties on the ground that the Complainant availed the services of the Opposite Parties for bank guarantee only for one quarter i.e. from the date of issuing to surrender period an the Manager of Opposite Party No.2 has specifically told the Complainant that the bank guarantee will be issued with year to year system and charges will be deducted with same manner. Regarding this the guidelines are also issued by Reserve Bank of India and Punjab National Bank that guarantee can be issued for year to year and the charges for the same will be deducted year to year, but the Opposite Parties issued it for 5 years and charged for those five years in one time and hence the Opposite Parties committed the fault. Undisputedly, the Complainant is lay woman and she has no knowledge of this technical process and it is the duty of the officials of the Opposite Parties to provide the best services of its customers and in this regard, we fully agree with the contention of the Complainant because keeping in view the good customer ship and keen interest of the Complainant with the Opposite Parties (who is just a student), and keeping in view the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India (issued from time to time), the Opposite Parties should have issued the said bank guarantee for year to year basis instead of charging for those five years. Such intention of the officials of the Opposite Parties further proves that since the very beginning, the case of the Complainant was that she surrendered the bank guarantee with the Opposite Parties on 3.10.2016 and requested the officials of the Opposite Parties to refund the amount of Rs.25,650/-. But as per their own admission of the Opposite Parties, they did not consider the request dated 3.10.2016 of the Complainant for the refund of the amount, but they knowingly deposited the amount of Rs.25,650/- with the Government Exchequer account on 04.10.2016 i.e. after one day from the date of surrender of bank guarnatee. It shows the highhandedness and dictatorship of the officials of the Opposite Parties because despite full knowledge on 03.10.2016 of the request of Complainant regarding refund of the amount, the officials of the Opposite Parties did not keep the matter pending till its final decision and very hastily and hurriedly deposited the said amount with Government Exchequer Account and hence, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the officials of the Opposite Parties and hence, the Opposite Parties are liable to refund the said amount of Rs.25,650/- to the Complainant alongwith 8% interest.
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to refund the amount of Rs.25,650/- (Rupees twenty five thousands six hundred fifty only) alongwith interest @ 8% per annum w.e.f. 03.10.2016 (i.e. from the date when the complainant admittedly surrendered the bank guarantee to the Opposite Parties) till its actual realization. Opposite Parties are also directed to pay lump sum compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousands only) on account of harassment, mental tension and litigation expenses, to the Complainant. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
14. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the two Whole Time Members in this Commission since 15.09.2018. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Faridkot. There is only one working day in a week when the quorum of this Commission remains complete.
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated: 13.08.2021.
