STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

U.C.O. Bank, Sector 17, Chandigarh, through its Branch Head.

……Appellant/Opposite Party

V e r s u s

Panjab University, Sector 14, Chandigarh, through its Registrar.

              ....Respondent/complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Dr. Devinder Singh, Associate Professor Department of                       Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh, in person, on behalf                   of the respondent.

PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT

              This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.11.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it accepted the complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the Opposite Party (now appellant), as under:-

“Keeping in view the foregoings, taking a lenient view and relying on the R.B.I. Guidelines, where it has clearly been stated that some interest should be paid proportionately for the actual number of days reckoning the year at 365 days, for which the Bank should adopt its own methodology, we allow this complaint in favour of the Complainant and direct the Bank to pay interest at the saving bank interest applicable on the date the amount was deposited. This amount be paid by the Bank on Rs.20 crore for 26 days. The amount thus due be paid by the Opposite Party with further penal interest of additional 2% from the date it should have been paid, till the date it is now paid. The complete awarded amount be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order, till it is paid. No costs”.

2.               The facts, in brief, are that the complainant University deposited a sum of Rs.50 crores, in the shape of STDRs, for a period of 91 days, with the Opposite Party, at an agreed interest rate of 10.25% P.A. The STDRs were to mature on 04.06.2011. On 30.03.2011, i.e. only after 26 days of the deposit of the aforesaid amount, an amount of Rs.20 crores was withdrawn, by the complainant University. It was stated that the Opposite Party did not give interest, on this amount, for 26 days. It was further stated that the request dated 4.6.2011 vide Annexure C-3, was made to the Opposite Party, to release the amount of interest due, for 26 days, on the amount of Rs.20 crores, which was withdrawn by the complainant University, but it (Opposite Party), vide letter dated 6.6.2011, refused to pay the same, on the ground, that it was not accepting bulk deposits for less than 30 days, keeping in view the closing on 31.3.2011. It was further stated that the Opposite Party was giving interest, on the premature FDR, which remained with it, for 26 days. It was further stated that, at the time of issuance of FDR, the rate of interest, on normal deposits for 91 days, was 7.25% P.A., whereas, interest @10.25%, had been quoted, to the complainant University, on bulk deposits. It was further stated that non-grant of interest, by the Opposite Party, on the amount withdrawn by the complainant University, after 26 days, was in contravention of the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, circulated by it, in Master Circular dated July 1, 2010. It was further stated that, in case of pre-mature withdrawal of the term deposit, interest was required to be paid, by the Opposite Party, for the period, the said amount remained with it, at the rate applicable and not at the contracted rate. It was further stated that refusal of the Opposite Party, in making payment of interest, for the period, the amount of Rs.20 crores, remained deposited with it, amounted to deficiency, in  rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant University, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed by it, directing the Opposite Party, to pay interest @5.25% P.A., on the amount of Rs.20 crores, for the period of 26 days, i.e. from 5.03.2011 to 30.03.2011; pay additional interest @24% P.A., on the amount of interest aforesaid, from 01.04.2011, till realization: and compensation, in the sum of Rs.10 lacs, for deficiency, in rendering service, adopting unfair trade practice and causing mental agony and physical harassment.

3.               The Opposite Party, in its written version, admitted that the amount, mentioned in the complaint, was deposited with it, by the complainant University. It was stated that since the amount of Rs.20 crores, out of the deposited amount of Rs.50 crores, by the complainant University, in the shape of STDRs, was withdrawn, prematurely, after 26 days, as per its prevalent circular dated 1.3.2011 (Annexure R-1), the minimum time period, prescribed to fetch interest, was 30 days, and, as such, no interest was payable, to the complainant University. It was further stated that the complainant University was duly informed, about this factum. It was further stated that the authorities of the complainant University did not raise any objection, at the time of withdrawing the amount of Rs.20 crores, that it had not been paid interest, and, it was only on 4.6.2011, i.e. after a period of more than two and a half months of the withdrawal of amount of Rs.20 crores, that it asked for payment of the same. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.

4.               The Parties, by way of short affidavits, led evidence, in support of their case.

5.               After hearing the authorized representative of the Complainant University, Counsel for the Opposite Party, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.               Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.

7.               We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, authorized representative of the respondent, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully. 

8.               The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that since the amount of Rs.20 crores was withdrawn prematurely i.e. after 26 days, of its deposit, as per circular letter dated 31.03.2011 Annexure R-1, the complainant was not entitled to any interest. He further submitted that the complainant very well knew of this factum, and that was why, it did not claim any interest, on 30.03.2011, when withdrawal of the aforesaid amount, was made. He further submitted, that it was only on 04.06.2011, that the complainant demanded interest. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong, in accepting the complaint. He further submitted that the impugned order, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

9.               On the other hand, the authorized representative of the respondent/complainant submitted that, as per the Master Circular dated 01.07.2010, containing the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India, the complainant was entitled to the prevalent rate of interest, on premature withdrawal of the amount of STDRs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.

10.            Before considering the rival submissions of the Parties, it is pertinent to mention here, that the perusal of the District Forum record reveals that Prof. A.K. Bhandari, Registrar of the complainant University, filed his short affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, on behalf of the complainant University. Even, Sh. N.K. Jain, Senior Manager of the Opposite Party, filed his short affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the written version, on behalf of the Opposite Party. The question arises, as to whether, such short affidavits can be treated as legally admissible evidence, or not. In S. Kumar Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Anr., III (2005) CPJ 642, decided by this Commission, only a short affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, was filed. This Commission held that such a short affidavit, could not be treated as legally admissible evidence. Since, short affidavits, cannot be treated as legally admissible evidence, it means that the averments, contained in the complaint, of the complainant, as also, in the written version of the Opposite Party, simply remained unsubstantiated. There is, no dispute, about the factum that the proceedings before the Consumer Foras under the Act, are summary in nature. The Consumer Foras are not required to go into the technicalities, while deciding the complaint. In other words, the proceedings before the Consumer Foras, in a complaint, are unfettered by technicalities, as envisaged by the Evidence Act.  However, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that the complainant and the Opposite Party, are required to file their affidavits, by way of evidence, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint, as also in the written version. The affidavits, so filed, must be, in accordance with the provisions of law, and only then the same can be read into evidence, for deciding the complaint. In the instant case, no doubt, in the complaint, the Registrar of the complainant University, stated that the complainant was entitled to interest, on the amount of Rs.20 crores, when the same was withdrawn, from the deposited amount, after only 26 days of deposit. On the other hand, the Opposite Party denied the same, on the ground that it was not accepting bulk deposits for less than 30 days, keeping in view the closing on 31.3.2011, and in view of the RBI circular (Annexure C-6) cited by the complainant, no interest was payable by it, where premature withdrawal of deposits took place, before the completion of the minimum period prescribed i.e. 30 days. However, as stated above, in support of the averments, contained, in the complaint, the Registrar of the complainant only filed his short affidavit, to the effect, that the contents of the accompanying complaint, on behalf of the complainant University, were true and correct, and, on the other hand, the Senior Manager of the Opposite Party also filed his short affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the written version. As stated above, since, short affidavits, cannot be treated as legally admissible evidence, the averments, contained in the complaint, as also in the written version, simply remained unsubstantiated. However, it may be stated here, that in the appeal, the Appellate Authority, is required to take into consideration, as to whether, the  correct procedure, laid down, in the Act, was adopted by the District Forum, for deciding the complaint or not. The District Forum did not take into consideration that only short affidavits, in support of the allegations, contained in the complaint, filed by the complainant, as also, in the written version filed by the Opposite Party, could not be read into evidence.  Even the perusal of various orders passed, in the complaint, goes to reveal that the District Forum did not afford an opportunity, to the Parties, to file the detailed affidavits, in support of the averments, contained in the complaint and the written version. It was the duty of the District Forum, to go through the complaint file properly. Had the District Forum gone through the complaint file carefully, it would have certainly come to the conclusion, that the short affidavits, which were filed by the Parties, in support of their averments, were not legally admissible, and, direction could have been given to the Parties, to file the detailed affidavits, but it did not do so. It is settled principle of law, that proper procedure should be followed, while deciding the cases. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case, in which the order of the District Forum, should be set aside, and the complaint should be remanded back, to the District Forum, for fresh decision, in accordance with the provisions of law, by affording opportunity to the Parties, to lead their evidence, by way of detailed affidavit(s).

11.            No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant, and authorized representative of the respondent.

12.            For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the District Forum, with a direction, to afford an opportunity to the Parties, to lead their evidence, by way of detailed affidavit(s) and, thereafter, decide the complaint, afresh, on merits, in accordance with the provisions of law.

13.            The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum, on 21.02.2013 at 10.30.a.m.

14.            The District Forum record, be sent back immediately, alongwith a certified copy of this order, so as to reach there, well before the date and time fixed i.e. 21.02.2013 at 10.30.a.m.

15.            Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.            The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

February 11, 2013

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Rg