STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 64 of 2017
AGAINST
CC No. 310 of 2016, DISTRICT FORUM II, HYDERABAD
Between :
Dandu Vani Kumari,
W/o D. Krishna Murthy Raju,
Aged about 62 years,
R/o 8-3-167/30, Flat # 201,
Erragadda, Hyderabad – 18 .. Appellant/complainant
And
- The Sovereign Gold Bond Scheme Officer, RBI,
D# 6-1-56, Secretariat road,
Saifabad, Hyderabad.
- The Branch Manager,
Oriental Bank of Commerce
Regency Plaza, Ameerpet,
Hyderabad. .. Respondents
Counsel for the Appellant : Party-in-person
Counsel for the Respondents : Sri S.C. Mehanta, Legal officer of R1
Sri A. Sanjeevulu for R2.
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Monday, the Second Day of April
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 15/12/2016 made in CC 310 of 2016 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM II, Hyderabad
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that she invested in Sovereign gold bond scheme through Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ameerpet branch by payment of SGB transaction Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/- for each 10 grams and Rs.31,200 for 12grams on 22-01- 2016 and he also invested through Canara Bank of S.R.Nagar branch at Hyderabad the same bonds pattern which were allotted. But Oriental Bank of Commerce bank transaction was rejected and the said amounts were credited into her account No.10932191003225 silently on 29-02-2016 by NEFT transaction without any reason showing for the rejection. So she got issued a notice through her husband to the opposite party at Hyderabad from the concerned bank to channelize it to RBI on 5-3-2016. In utter defiance of the terms of the scheme for rejection of application resulted to a lose of rupees 400 per gram of gold, total 400*52 =20800 as per market occurred by 08-02-2016 as issue date of the bonds and delayed in returning the money from 08-02-2016 up to 29-02-2016 of Rs.1,35,200/- along with interest @ 12% interest. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,800/-, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of Rs.5,000/-.
4). The opposite party no.1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that the Central Government vide its notification dated 14-01-2016, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (iii) of Section 3 of the Government Securities Act, 2006, made a scheme which is called as “Sovereign
Gold Bond Scheme, 2016”. Reserve Bank acts as the debt manager of the Government of India under Section 20 and 21 of the RBI Act 1934. The Oriental Bank of Commerce is an agent as per the section 2(a) of the Government Securities Act, 2006 to manage Govt. securities. It was notified as a receiving office by Government of India for accepting the applications for Sovereign Gold Bonds. The Reserve Bank vide its circular dated 04-11-2015 allowed the branches of the commercial banks including the Oriental Bank of Commerce to process the application through e-Kuber system for processing the application. The complainant has not impleaded Oriental Bank of Commerce as an opposite party for adjudication of the dispute who is the agent of Central Government. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable. There is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party. The opposite party only performing statutory function. Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation and also damages as per the decision reported in I (1991) CPR 661 in between Veerendra Prasad Vs. Reserve Bank of India & Ors. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A-3 and the opposite party filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B 1 and B2.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). The Oriental Bank of Commerce was impleaded as second respondent before this Commission vide orders dated 21.07.2017 in IA 135 of 2017.
Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments. Heard both sides. Ex.B3 and Ex. B4 were marked before this Commission on behalf of the second respondent.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No.1 :
There is no dispute that the appellant/complainant has invested in Sovereign gold bond scheme invested through Oriental Bank of Commerce at Ameerpet branch by payment of SGB transaction Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/-, Rs.26,000/- for each 10 grams and Rs.31,200 for 12grams on 22-01-2016 in total he paid Rs.1,35,200/- with an intention to obtain 52 Grams. There is no dispute that the said amount was credited to the complainant’s account on 29-2-2016 without issuing any bond.
11). The contention of the is that the opposite party failed to give the gold bonds even though she paid the amount without her knowledge the amount was credited to her account. Therefore by the date of crediting the amount he sustained a loss of Rs.400 per gram because of variation of the gold rate.
12). The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the appellant/complainant invested the amount in Sovereign gold bond scheme through Oriental Bank of Commerce bank and Oriental Bank of Commerce bank and it was not impleaded as one of the parties which is a necessary party and the first opposite party Reserve Bank of India was merely exercising its statutory function as the statutory authority charged with the task of enforcing the provisions relating to foreign exchange control contained in the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. While acting in the said capacity it cannot be said to be rendering any banking service to the complainant nor was there any element of hiring of service, which is a sine qua no for attracting the definition of the expression ‘ consumer’ contained in Sec.2(1) (d) of the Act.
13). The Oriental Bank of Commerce, which was impleaded as second respondent in the appeal before this Commission, while accepting that it is an agent to accept applications, rest of the process and operations are made through/by Reserve Bank of India only. The appellant has suppressed the fact abut his similar application, allotment and investment under the Sovereign Gold Scheme through another agent, i.e., Canara bank and investor ID was already generated. Under the Scheme, only One Investor I.D. to be allotted to an individual for all the transactions/ investments under the Scheme. But the appellant failed to inform the ID Number already allotted in the application and hence her application was not accepted and therefore as per instructions of R-1, RBI, it had returned the investment amount of Rs.1,35,200/- along with interest for an amount of Rs.562/- at prevailing rate of interest @ 4% pa to her account. There is no privity of contract between the appellant and the second respondent and that the Scheme was introduced by the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs and it was not made as a party and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
14). The averment of the second respondent Commercial bank is that the appellant depositor did not mention the Investor ID which was already generated when she applied under the same scheme through Canara bank and hence the system did not accept and hence the amount was refunded along with interest. But no such rule was placed before us by the second respondent bank/agent to support its argument. Further, the appellant averred that in 9th issue of S.G. B, she applied 61 grams as a single bond and got allotted with 2.5% interest per annum, half yearly payable through Vijaya Bank. Whatever it may be, it is not the case of the appellant that she mentioned her Investor ID number which was already generated in the present application and since the amount invested by the appellant was returned along with interest and hence there is no loss to her monetarily. The appellant failed to prove that the averment of the second respondent bank is false with regard to mentioning of Investor ID number. Expected loss cannot be compensated. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that there is no merits in the appeal and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 15.12.2016 in CC 310 of 2016 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 02.04.2018.
Appendix of Evidence
Documents Marked
For second respondent :
Ex.B3 : 24.01.2018 : Customer Account Ledger report
Ex.B4 : 04.11.2015 : Sovereign Gold Bonds, 2015-16, Operational Guidelines.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 02.04.2018.
