Date of filing :30-07-2010
Date of order :14-03-2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
C.C. 168/2010
Dated this, the 14th day of March 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
P.Savithri,
W/o.Balakrishnan, Chirakkara(H), Mavungal, } Complainant
Ajanur Village, Po. Anandhasram, Hosdurg Taluk,
(Adv.N.P. Ravindran, Hosdurg)
1. The Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank, } Opposite parties
Mavungal Branch, Anandhasram.
2. The Area Manager, North Malabar Gramin Bank,
Area Office, Kanhangad.
(Adv. Kodoth Narayanan, Hosdurg)
O R D E R
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ, PRESIDENT
The case of complainant is as follows:-
Complainant Savithri is the wife of Sri.C.V. Balakrishnan. They have two children named Santhosh and Seena and both of them attained majority. Sri.C.V.Balakrishnan met with a Motor Accident on 4-10-2009 and now lying unconscious. He had pledged gold ornaments worth 9 sovereigns and availed a gold loan `62,500/-. He is also maintaining an SB A/c in which a sum of `83,555/- is in deposit. Now he is not in a position to approach the opposite parties to close the loan and take back the gold ornaments after adjusting the money kept in his SB Account. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party No.1 with a request to allow her either to settle the gold loan account by fully discharging the liability and to take back the gold ornaments or to allow her to renew the gold loan by paying the accrued interest. But opposite parties refused her prayer and instructed her to obtain a court order authorizing a person to take back the pledged ornaments. Therefore the complaint.
2. According to opposite parties as per banking rules the bank can close the account of a party or return the pledged ornaments only to the account holder or the loanee. The question of closing the SB Account and also return of the pledged ornaments to the survivors comes only on the death of account holder or the loanee or by an order from the competent court to do and this fact was intimated to the complainant. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. Complainant filed proof affidavit as PW1. Exts A1 to A3 marked. Ext.A1 is the Savings bank pass book issued by opposite party No.1 to Sri.C.V. Balakrishnan. Ext.A2 is the gold loan receipt issued by opposite party No.1 to Sri.C.V.Balakrishnan. Ext.A3 is the reply sent by opposite party No.2 to complainant informing her to produce a court order authorizing a person to deal with the banking transactions. Complainant cross-examined by the learned counsel for opposite parties.
4. On the side of opposite parties Sri.K.Prabhakaran, the Manager of opposite party No.2 Bank filed affidavit. No documents produced by opposite parties.
5. During the pendency of proceedings the complainant filed I.A. 256/10 for an interim order directing the opposite party No.1to adjust and set off the Gold loan amount laying in the SB Account of Sri.CV. Balakrishnan. Both sides heard and Sri. Kodoth Narayanan learned counsel for opposite parties fairly conceded that the Bank has no objection in adjusting the SB Account to the gold and set off the loan. Therefore the said IA is allowed and accordingly the amount is adjusted to set off the gold loan
6. Now the only issue to be settled in this complaint is whether the Forum can pass an order authorizing the complainant to take back the gold ornaments pledged by Sri.CV.Balakrishnan or not?
7. It is not a dispute that Sri. Balakrishnan is met with an accident and lying in unconscious coma state. It is also not in dispute that complainant is not the wife of Sri.C.V. Balakrishnan and Santhosh and Seena are not their children. The pledging of gold ornaments and the amount laying in SB account of Sri.C.V. Balakrishnan is also not in dispute.
8. The complainant here in is the wife of C.V.Balakrishnan who is an account holder of the opposite party No.1. There is no do doubt that in case of deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Sri.C.V.Balakrishnan can certainly approach this Forum for relief. Since he is lying unconscious his wife can be considered as a beneficiary to the accounts maintained by C.V.Balakrishnan. As per Consumer Protection Act not only a consumer but the beneficiary is also vested with the right to file a complaint before the Forum. Hence we hold that complainant is a beneficiary of the services that ought to have rendered by opposite parties to Sri.C.V. Balakrishnan.
9. That apart as per Sec 3 of the Consumer Protection Act, the provision of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other provisions of any law for the time being in force. Having due regard to the scheme of the Act and purpose sought to be achieved to protect the interest of the consumer, better the provisions are to be interpreted broadly, positively and purposefully in the context of the present case to give meaning to additional extended jurisdiction, particularly when Sec. 3 seeks to provide remedy under the Act in addition to other remedies provided under other Acts unless there is clear bar. So as per the above said authority, despite provisions for referring the party/complainant to District Court to file an OP under Mental Health Act the object and purpose of the CP Act cannot be frustrated as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any laws in force.
10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Secretary, Thirumurugan Co-op. Agricultural Credit Soceity V. M. Lalitha (Dead) through LR’s and Others reported in 2004 CONSUMER 7844(NS) wherein objection was raised as to the jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Agencies in view of the bar/arbitration clause contained in Sec 90 and Sec 156 of the Tamil Nadu Co-op Societies Act 1983, has held that merely because of the liabilities are created to the appellate society under Co-operative Societies Act 1983 and the Forums are provided for adjudicating the dispute between them it cannot take away the jurisdiction conferred on Forum under Consumer Protection Act expressly and intentionally to serve a definite cause in terms of the objects and reasons of the Act.
11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Neeraj Munjal and Others Versus Atul Grover (Minor) and another, 1986-2004 CONSUMER 7438(NS), in para 10 and 11 of the judgment has held that the courts could not deprive the parties from a remedy, which is otherwise available to them in law. It has been further held that a court of law has no jurisdiction to direct a matter to be governed by one statute when provisions of another Statute are available.
12. In “State of U.P. & Others Versus Jeet S. Bisht & Anr., 2007 (3) CLT 10”(supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been enacted for better protection of the interest of the consumers. The said Act is in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of the any other law for the time being in force. The Act not only provides for new rights for the citizens of India in their capacity as consumers, it envisages
their empowerment in this behalf. It is indisputably the solemn duty of the executive of both the Government of India and also the Government of State to implement the provisions of the Act in true letter and spirit. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above said authority has further held that the Consumer Protection Act embodies a certain value in protecting the interest of the consumers in the age of consumerism and the institution of consumer Fora is a specific mission in that behalf.
13. In “State of Karnataka Versus Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. Society and others, 1986-2004 CONSUMER 7415(NS), where the constitutionality of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was challenged on various grounds, the three Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act clearly demonstrate that it was enacted keeping in view a long felt necessity of protecting the common man from wrongs where for the ordinary law for all intent and purport had become illusory. In terms of the said Act, a consumer is entitled to participate in the proceedings directly as a result whereof his helplessness against a powerful business house may be taken care of. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India further held that by reason of the said statute (Consumer Protection Act), quasi-judicial authorities have been created at the District, State and Central levels so as to enable a consumer to ventilate his grievances before a Forum where justice can be done without any procedural wrangles and hyper-technicalities. One of the objects of the said Act is to provide momentum to the consumer movement. While referring to the several provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and also discussing the various authorities, the Hon’ble three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India further held that by reason of provisions of Section 3 of the Act, the said Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the civil court or other statutory authorities. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while relying upon another authorities styled as “Fair Air Engineers Versus N.K. Modi, III 1996 CPJ(SC) and “Satpal Mohindra Versus Surindra Timber Stores, (1999) 5 SCC 696” has specifically held that the provisions of the said Act are required to be interpreted as broadly as possible. It has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint despite the fact that other Forum/courts would also have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter.
14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in “Ghaziabad Development Authority Versus Balbir Singh, 1986-2004 CONSUMER 8287(NS) 2004 (2) CLT 628”, has held that the Consumer Protection Act has a wide reach and the Commission has jurisdiction in case of services referred by the statutory and public authorities. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said authority further held that matters, which require immediate attention, should not be allowed to linger on. The consumer must not be made to run from pillar to post. Where there has been capricious or arbitrary or negligent exercise or non-exercise of power by an officer of the authority, the Commission/Forum has a statutory obligation to award compensation.
15. In Kishore Lal Versus Chairman, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, 2007 (4) SCC 579, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed:-
“It has been held in numerous cases of this Court that jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora has to be construed liberally so as to bring many cases under it for their speedy disposal. The Act being a beneficial legislation, it should receive a liberal construction.”
16. In view of the discussions above we do not feel that the complainant has to be again sent to another forum/court to obtain a certificate authorizing her to close the loan and SB account and take back the gold ornaments. It would further leads to multiplicity of proceedings and harassment also.
In the result, complaint is allowed and opposite parties are directed to return the gold ornaments pledged by Sri.C.V.Balakrishnan who is now lying in coma stage to his wife Savithri, the complainant herein. The opposite parties also directed to close the SB A/c maintained by C.V.Balakrishnan and pay the balance if any lying in that account after setting off the gold loan to the complainant. The complainant directed to submit no objection cum undertaking letter of the children of Sri.C.V.Balakrishnan namely Santhosh and Seena stating that they have no objection in returning the gold ornaments pledged by their father C.V.Balakrishnan to their mother and in the event of any dispute in future on account of returning 9 sovereigns of gold ornaments, they will indemnify all the losses if any that may cause to opposite parties.
In the result, complaint is allowed to that extent with no order as to costs. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Savings Bank Pass Book.
A2. Gold loan receipt.
A3.26-4-2010. letter sent by Area Manager, NMG Bank, Kanhangad to Complainant.
PW1. Savithri.P.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
