Tripura

StateCommission

A/5/2017

The Branch Manager, Axis Bank. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Uttam Chandra Saha - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Arindam Lodh, Mr. Subrata Debnath, Mr. Sumit Debnath

27 Apr 2017

ORDER

Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

 

Case No.A.5.2017

 

 

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank, H.G.B. Road,

Near Post Office Chowmuhani,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura:799001.

 

… … … … … … Appellant/Opposite Party.

 

•  

 

1. Sri Uttam Chandra Saha,

S/o Late MonmohanSaha,

Office of the President,

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Gorkhabasti, West Tripura, Agartala.

… … … … … … Respondent/Complainant.

 

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. SobhanaDatta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                          Mr. ArindamLodh, Adv.          

For the Respondent:                                      Mr. Kajal Nandi, Adv.    

Date of Hearing &Delivery of Judgment:      27.04.2017.

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

U.B. Saha,J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Branch Manager, Axis Bank, H.G.B. Road, Agartala under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment dated 17.01.2017 passed by the Ld. District Consumers Disputes Redressal Forum (hereinafter referred to as District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala  in Case No. C.C. 91 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum directed the appellant Branch Manager, Axis Bank who was the opposite party in the aforesaid complaint case to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner-complainant Sri Uttam Chandra Saha, the respondent herein. The amount is to be paid within one month and if not paid, it will carry interest @9% per annum.

2. Heard Mr. ArindamLodh, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Branch Manager, Axis Bank (hereinafter referred to as opposite party/Bank) as well as Mr. Kajal Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner).
3. As agreed by the Ld. Counsel of the parties and the record of Ld. District Forum has already been received, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage.
4. Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

On 16.11.2016, complainant, Sri Uttam Chandra Saha,a Gr-D employeeof the Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, working in the Office of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala went to deposit two five hundred rupees denomination notes along with ahundred rupees denomination note to the Axis Bank through a challan and standing in the queue for 40 minutes, while he was about to deposit the the money, the Bank staff refused to accept the notes and asked him to produce authorization letter and identification. The complainant informed one lady staff of the said Bank that the moneywould be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department, but she turned down his request and told that there would be no deposit without authorization and identity card. Being frustrated, the complainant returned to his office and filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party Bank for deficiency of service.

The opposite party, Branch Manager, Axis Bank filed his written statement wherein it is stated that as per mandate of RBI, without authorization letter the 500/- rupees denomination notes cannot be deposited. It is also stated that format of authorization was issued by the RBI, but the complainant did not take the authorization format. The staff of the Bank acted as per guidelines of RBI and there was no deficiency of service.

Both the complainant and the opposite party adduced their evidences.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, the Ld. District Forum considered the RBI guidelines vide No. RBI 2016-17/112 Gazette Notification No.2652 dated 8^th November, 2016 and stated that “In this notification it is clearly written that ‘In order to enable the members of public and other entities to exchange their existing Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- notes, the following arrangements have to be made by the banks’This provision is written about the exchange facility. In total 11 types of arrangements are made. In IV arrangement it is written that ‘the equivalent value of specified bank notes tendered may be credited to a third party account, provided specified authorization therefore accorded by the third party is presented to the bank, following standard banking procedure and on production of valid proof of identity of the person actually tendering, as indicated in Annexure-5’. This provision clearly deals in the matter of exchange of 500/- and 1000/- rupees denominations notes. The provision is arrangement about the method of exchanging notes, not deposit. But the Axis Bank Manager applied it in case of deposit of the notes. Representative definitely is to produce letter of authority while tendering notes in case of exchange. But it is not applicable in case of deposit. In the notification it is clearly mentioned that one can deposit specific bank note of 1000/- and 500/- denominations notes through ATM cash depositing machine or cash recyclers. It is clearly written that specific bank note can be deposited in cash deposit machine. When it is possible to deposit in the machine without any identity proof then why it is considered necessary for depositing in the bank” and finally held that the Manager, Axis Bank had deficiency of service while refusing to accept the two notes of 500/- rupees denominations and he is under obligation to compensate the complainant, the Government employee and ultimately directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as stated (supra).
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the opposite party Bank has preferred the instant appeal.
7. Mr. Lodh, Ld. Counsel while urging for setting aside the impugned judgment submits that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable, being he is not a consumer of the appellant Bank as per provisions of Section 2 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He further submits that even in the complaint petition, nowhere the complainant has stated that he filed the complaint petition on behalf of the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department or on behalf of the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, rather he filed the complaint petition in his personal capacity as Gr-D employee of the Office of the District Forum. He has taken us to the part of the Notification dated 08.11.2016, which was quoted in Paragraph-3 of the Affidavit-in-Chief of the appellant as D.W.1 which is reproduced herein below:-

“The equivalent value of specified bank notes tendered may be credited to a third party account, provided specific authorization therefor accorded by the third party is presented to the bank, following standard banking procedure and on production of valid proof of identity of the person actually tendering, as indicated in Annexure-5.”

Ld. Counsel has also taken us to the order dated 14.12.2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum wherein as an interim step, the District Forum directed the Manager, Axis Bank to accept the two notes of 500/- rupees denominations along with other cashes to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund kept in their bank in the name of Director, Food and accordingly, the Bank accepted the two notes of 500/- rupees denominations along with other cashes deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund in the Axis Bank.

He has also submitted that admittedly, the complainant is not the account holder of the appellant Bank and also did not go to the Bank for depositing the aforesaiddenomination notes in his own account, but to a third party account.

8. Mr. Nandi, Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant submits that admittedly, the complainant did not produce any authorization letter from the account holder except the challan signed by the President, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. He has also admitted that the complainant went to deposit two numbers of 500/- notes and other cashes to be credited to a third party account i.e. the account of Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department.
9. We have gone through the impugned judgment as well as relevant portion of the notification dated 08.11.2016 quoted in the Affidavit-in-Chief of D.W.1. From the aforesaid notification dated 08.11.2016, it is very much clear that specified bank notes tendered may be credited to a third party account, provided specific authorization therefor accorded by the third party is presented to the Bank, following standard banking procedure and on production of valid proof of identity of the person actually tendering, as indicated in Annexure-5. There is difference between crediting of notes in a third party account and exchange of specified bank notes. More so, the complainant is neither a consumer of the Axis Bank nor filed the complaint petition on behalf of the third party account holder before Consumer Forum for deficiency of service on the part of the Bank, rather he has filed the complaint in his personal capacity for his harassment and deficiency of service.  There is no doubt that the notes of 500/- rupees denomination which were deposited by the consumers in the Consumer Court have to be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund, an account opened in the name of Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department in the Axis Bank. The complainant nowhere in its complaint petition or in the Affidavit-in-Chief stated that he has met with the appellant Bank Manager on the relevant dated and disclosedhis identity, rather according to the complainant, one lady staff who was sitting in the counter told him to show the identity card and authorization letter of the Government, but name of the said lady staff is also not mentioned either in the complaint or in his deposition. Therefore, we are unable to accept the findings of the Ld. District Forum inter alia, that, "The account was opened long back. The Bank Manager was supposed to be aware about it. In spite of that he did not allow the Food Department staff to deposit the two numbers of 500/- rupees denominations notes and harassed him unnecessarily by misinterpreting the RBI guideline." The complainant had not gone to the Manager of the Bank and disclosed his identity.Even after disclosure of his identity and narrating the action of the lady staff,if the Bank refused to receive 500/- rupees denomination notes along with other notes, then only the liability could be fixed on the Bank Manager on deficiency of service.

What a surprise to note that the challan through which an amount of Rs.1350/- was to be deposited to the Axis Bank was not having the signature of the depositor. It is not understandable to us as to why the complainant did not put his signature in the challan before depositing the aforesaid amount to the bank and the challan was passed as such by the President, District Forum.

In the notification dated 08.11.2016, as referred in the Affidavit-in-Chief of the D.W.1, it is stated that specified Bank notes tendered may be credited to a third party account not exchange of the specified bank notes. Credit means deposit of money to an account and exchange means to give and to take in return, therefore, it is difficult to say that the RBI notification is only relating to exchange of notes as held by the Ld. District Forum.

We are of the further opinion that the complainant is neither a consumer nor was authorized by the consumer third party account holder of the Bank to file the complaint petition on behalf of the third party account holder. Therefore, question of deficiency of service on the part of appellant Branch Manager, Axis Bank does not arise at all and accordingly, the direction of the Ld. District Forum to pay compensation of Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner-complainant is hereby set aside. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the observation of the District Forum as to whether the Food Department should close the Consumer Welfare Fund account in the appellant Bank and arrange to deposit all the amount lying there in any other nationalized bank to get proper service as the decision has to be taken on the basis of the said observation by the Director, Food, Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs Department i.e. account holder in the Bank. 

In the result, the appeal is allowed.        

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.