For the appellants:                                        Mr. N. Dhar, Advocate

For the respondent No. 4:                             Ms. B. Das

For the respondent Nos. 1,2,3, 5, 6,7 & 8:    None appeared.

Date of Hearing:                                            08-11-2019

Date of Judgment:                                         05-12-2019

J U D G M E N T

BY MR. JUSTICE DR. INDIRA SHAH, PRESIDENT

          This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the order dated 28-12-2018 passed by the District Forum, Kamrup, in Consumer Complaint No. 101 of 2018 whereby the complaint filed by the appellants herein has been summarily dismissed.

2.       Herd Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant. Also heard Ms. B. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 4.

3.       Facts in brief are that Sri Hiranya Bora (Respondent No. 4) was elected as one of the General Secretary of the Indian National Trade Union Congress, ( Trade Union, in short) in Biennial Session held on 13-2-2011 and subsequently appointed as General Secretary (Administration). However, he being suspended from the post by the President of the Trade Union, challenged his suspension by filing a Title Suit but the Suit filed by the respondent No. 4 was abated. During the pendency of the Suit, the complainant No. 1. and new General Secretaries were elected in the Triennial Session. The President of Indian National Congress, New Delhi, advised the respondent No. 4 to withdraw the Civil Suit filed by him assuring him that he will continue as General Secretary (Administration) of the Trade Union, Assam Branch. Since the Suit filed by the respondent abated, the resolution in the Triennial Session was adopted and new set of elected Office Bearers assumed their Office with effect from 28-2-2018. The newly elected General Secretary of the Trade Union vide letter dated 30-4-2018 intimated the Branch Manager, Assam Co-operative Apex Bank, the resolution adopted in working committee of the Trade Union held on 23-4-2018, regarding operation of the bank account of the Trade Union with the said bank by the person authorised by the appellant No. 1.By the intervention of the Gauhati High Court vide order dated 13-6-2018, the Civil Suit filed by the respondent No. 4 was revived. It is alleged that the appellants were not heard and the learned Civil Judge adjudicated the matter without issuing notice to the appellants. The respondent No. 6 thereafter impersonating himself as the Secretary of the Trade Union, submitted a representation dated 25-7-2018 to the Branch Manager, Co-operative Apex Bank, Guwahati to stop operation of the Bank Account of the Trade Union (complainant No. 1) with the said bank. The Branch Manager stopped the operation of the saving bank account of the Trade Union and declined to provide service to the appellants without hearing the appellants. The appellant No. 2, submitted a detailed representation dated 3-8-2018 to the Branch Manager of the bank i.e. respondent No. 3 and requested him to allow the elected office bearers of the complainant No. 1 to operate the bank account of the Trade Union (complainant No.1) and thereby to provide service to the appellants as per the resolution dated 23-4-2018. Thereafter the Branch Manager of the Bank (opposite party No. 3) vide letter dated 17-8-2018 asked the respondent No. 4 to submit relevant documents in support of his claim as General Secretary of the Trade Union, duly authenticated by the President of the Indian National Congress, New Delhi. It is alleged by the appellants that the said letter was issued by the Branch Manager, notwithstanding the fact that the Indian National Congress, Assam Branch, Guwahati, is neither a wing nor subordinate organization of the Indian National Congress, New Delhi, as per constitution of the Trade Union (complainant No.1). Another letter similar in line, was issued to respondent No. 3 to establish his claim as General Secretary of the Indian National Congress, Assam Branch. In the meantime, the proceeding of the Civil Suit filed by the respondent No. 4 was stayed vide order dated 29-8-2018 passed by the High Court. Again the appellant No. 2 filed a fresh representation to allow the appellant to operate the Bank Account. The appellant also served a legal notice to that effect. But the bank declined to give service to the appellant and has been withholding the payment to the appellant.

4.       Aggrieved by the act of the Bank, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, Kamrup, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Assam Co-operative Apex Bank etc. The District Forum vide impugned order held that the disputes are purely civil disputes and without disposal of civil disputes, it cannot be determined whether the act of stopping the account of the complainant No.1 by the opposite party Nos. 1,2 and 3, is lawful or illegal. The disputes between the parties cannot be said to be a consumer disputes and dismissed the complaint summarily.   

5.       In the case of Dhanbir Singh Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority reported in (2013) 11 SCC 472, it has been observed as under;

          “ The Consumer Protection Act was enacted to provide for better protection of the interests of consumers and for establishment of Consumer Councils and other authorities for the settlement of consumer disputes and for matters connected therewith. Section 3 declares that the provisions contained in the Act are in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. There is no provision in the Act which bars filing of a compliant  by a consumer after availing other statutory remedies. In matters like allotment of plot/land by HUDA and other similar agencies/instrumentalities of the State, whose functioning is governed by the law enacted by the State Legislature, departmental remedies are usually available to an aggrieved person. If such person falls within the definition of consumer under Section 2(d) of the Act then he can directly file a complaint under Section 12,17 and 21, as the case may be. He can also avail departmental remedy by filing an appeal. Once the appeal is decided and the consumer is aggrieved by the decision of the appellate authority then he can challenge the action/decision of the initial authority as well as the appellate authority by filing a complaint. If the complaint is time-barred, the consumer can seek condonation of delay by filing an application under Section 24-A(2).”

6.       Similarly in the cases of Virender Jain Vs Alak Nanda Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited & Ors. (2013 9SCC 383, it was held that remedy available under the Act is addition to the remedies available under other statutes and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar to the entertaining of a complaint filed under the Act.

7.       In the instant case admittedly the complainant/appellant having a saving bank account has been debarred from operating the account. The complainants allegedly submitted several representations to the respondent bank but the bank failed to respond and declined to provide any service to the complainants. The disposal of the complaint by the District Forum, even before entering of the respondents and filing any written statement, in our considered opinion is premature. Whether there was deficiency in service was not decided. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, the order dated 28-12-2018 is set-aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned District Forum with direction to admit the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants and to settle the dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The complainants/appellants shall appear before the District Forum on 20-1-2020.

7.       The appeal is allowed and disposed of accordingly.

8.       Send a copy of this judgment to the District Forum, Kamrup.