Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/178/2018

The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajinder and Co. Engineer and Contrator - Opp.Party(s)

Ravi Sharma, Adv.

21 Aug 2018

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	178 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	18.06.2018
Date of Decision	:	21.08.2018

1. The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sector 15, Chandigarh.
2. The Fields General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bank Square Building, Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

 ……Appellants/Opposite parties

 

V e r s u s

 

Rajinder & Co., Engineer and Contractor, R/o 1051, Sector 2, Panchkula through its Proprietor, Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Jyoti Prashad

.…. Respondent/Complainant

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

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:-      Sh.Ravi Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

 

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, against an order dated 03.05.2018, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which, it allowed consumer complaint bearing no.843 of 2016 and directed them as under:-

1. “To pay interest on the FDR in question at the rate applicable to fixed deposits for one year w.e.f. 23.10.2003 onwards after adjusting the amount already paid.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

2.         The Forum while passing the order impugned, noted down the following facts narrated by the respondent in his complaint:-

 

“In brief, the allegations are, complainant is a contractor firm engaged in implementation of various contracts. Maintained, on 24.10.2002, complainant got prepared one Fixed Deposit (FD) of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Principal Controller Defence Accounts, Western Command, Sector 9, Chandigarh from OP-2 for one year and the rate of interest was 7.5% p.a.  The FD was pledged as security with the said Principal Controller Defence Accounts.  In the month of July, 2016, the said Principal Controller sent the FDR in question for renewal to Central Bank of India and the same was renewed for six months and the interest calculated @ 6% w.e.f. 23.10.2003 to June 2016 was credited in the savings account of the complainant. Alleged, as per convention and rules. FD was supposed to be renewed automatically every year and the prevalent interest applicable on one year FD was to be calculated and disbursed to complainant. Despite correspondence, prayer of the complainant was not acceded to.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for a direction to the OPs to pay interest at the prevalent rate on the fixed deposits alongwith compensation and litigation charges.”

3.          Reply submitted by the appellants, was noted by the Forum, as under:-

“OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their reply and inter alia raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, estoppel as the FDR was not renewed after one year from the date of issuance.  As such, interest of saving rate as per instructions was given. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.”

 

4.         In the rejoinder filed, the respondent reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the appellants.
5.         The parties led evidence in support of their case.
6.         After hearing Counsel for the parties and also on going through the record of the case, the Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in opening para of this order, by observing as under:-

 

“ Per pleadings of the parties and affidavits filed in support thereof, it is not the case, complainant had instructed the OPs for the withdrawal of the amount or converting into saving bank rate of interest. Therefore, in this situation, renewal of the FD on expiry of the initial one year deposit i.e. 23.10.2003 and every year thereafter was automatic.  The rate of interest ought to have been calculated on prevailing rate as applicable to FDs of one year from to time. There were implied instructions for the renewal of the FD automatically. As such, there was no justification with the OPs to award only the saving bank rate of interest to the complainant. The reply furnished by the OPs does not cut any ice on legal and equitable basis also. ”

 

7.         In our considered opinion, findings given by the Forum, while allowing the complaint, are fully justified. Since, before the Forum, it was a specific case of the respondent, that the FDR in question was supposed to be renewed automatically, as such, under these circumstances, the appellants were required to place on record, cogent and convincing evidence to rebut the said stand of the respondent. They could have very well produced the application form, which would have definitely been got filled up from the respondent before issuance of the said FDR, to apprise the Forum, as to whether, as per terms and conditions contained therein, the said FDR was to be renewed automatically or not but they failed to do so. Even before this Commission also, no such document has been produced on record, alongwith the appeal, despite the fact that it was adjourned to two dates, for consideration. Under these circumstances, an adverse inference can easily be drawn that had the said application form, been produced on record, the same would have gone against the interest of the appellants, and, as such, it was deliberately not produced on record, just with a view to defeat the genuine claim of the respondent.
8.         Now coming to the objection raised by the appellants that since the respondent is a ‘Firm’ engaged in business of construction, as such, he did not fall within the definition of a consumer. We do not agree with the objection raised. As per Section 2 (1) (d) and (m) (i) to (iv) of the CPA 1986, with a view to obtain any relief provided under the said Act, consumer means any person which includes “(i) Firm whether registered or not; (ii) a Hindu undivided family” (iii) a co-operative society …………….”. Since, in the present case, it is an admitted fact that the respondent is a Firm, as such, it falls with the definition of consumer, as per Section, referred to above. Objection taken by the appellants, in this regard stands rejected. It is therefore held that the order passed by the Forum, does not call any interference  of this Commission and is liable to be upheld.
9.         For the reasons recorded above, this appeal being devoid of merit, is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost.
10.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
11.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

21.08.2018

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

 

Rg.