Chandigarh

StateCommission

CC/42/2023

Jugraj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No.

42 of 2023

Date of Institution

22.05.2023

Date of Decision    

13.06.2024

1]      SH. JUGRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL, R/o 18, PARKWOOD DR APT K, SOUTH AMBOY NJ 08879, USA.

2]      SMT. BALWINDER KAUR DHALIWAL, W/O SH. JUGRAJ SINGH DHALIWAL,  R/o 18, PARKWOOD DR APT K, SOUTH AMBOY NJ 08879, USA.

Complainants.

V e r s u s

 

1]      UNION BANK OF INDIA, GURU TEG BAHADUR HOSPITAL, SHASTRI NAGAR, LUDHIANA THROUGH ITS MANAGER.

2]      UNION BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE AT SCO NO.64-65, BANK SQUARE, SECTOR 17B, CHANDIGARH.

...Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:   MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:

Sh. Ramandeep Singh, Advocate for the complainants.

PER  RAJESH  K. ARYA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   A letter was received on 22.05.2023 by post from the complainants Sh. Jugraj Singh Dhaliwal and Smt. Balwinder Kaur Dhaliwal against Union Bank of India (Ludhiana Branch). However, vide order dated 24.05.2023, this Commission, while taking judicial notice that since the Regional Office of the opposite party - Union Bank of India is situated at SCO No.64-65, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh, therefore, the said letter was registered as  a complaint.

Brief facts:-

2]                The complainants being husband and wife are residents of USA and are holding Fixed Deposit Receipts with the Union Bank of India (in short ‘Bank’) – opposite party, Ludhiana Branch. It is their only grievance that since they were in urgent need of money and wanted to withdraw the money of the said FDRs, they requested opposite party No.1 – Bank through various communications and reminders but no concrete steps were taken by the Bank to return back the amount within time for which, the complainants suffered a huge financial loss. It has further been stated that they took up the matter with the Branch Manager Sh. Arvind Kumar of the Bank for the last 12 months, who simply refused to make payment of the FDRs. It has further been stated that the complainants are residing in USA and are not able to visit India at this point of time and asked close relatives in India to ask for the formalities to encash the FDRs. It has further been stated that the Branch Manager verbally told them to submit the original FDRs duly discharged by the complainants alongwith the request letters with all original documents duly attested by an official Notary in USA alongwith other identity proofs, i.e. Passports etc., which were duly supplied to the Bank by the relatives of the complainants, as per the Bank’s requirement. It has further been stated that on receipt of complete documents, the Bank Manager started making excuses to delay the payments by citing one reason or the other. It has further been stated that after delay of two months, the Branch Manager told to the relatives of the complainants that he would make payment if two sureties of equivalent amounts are submitted for payment of the FDRs.

3]                It has further been stated that with much difficulty in 2-3 further months, the complainants found one more relative who had FDRs with State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.25 Lakhs and on 02.03.2023, both the relatives met the Branch Manager and offered to stand as sureties and even submitted the printouts of their FDRs alongwith their identity proofs and PAN Cards. It has further been stated that the Branch Manager of the Bank again started making other excuses and in the end, refused point blankly telling them that he would make the payment of FDRs only if both the deposit holders i.e. the complainants personally visit the Branch. It has further been stated that when asked by the complainants for the instructions of the Bank in writing, the Branch Manager simply refused to give the same in writing and bluntly told the said relatives that he would make the payment of FDRs only to the complainants. The complainants have prayed that that opposite party No.1 – Bank be directed to make payment of FDRs.

Reply of the Opposite Parties:

4]                The opposite parties in their joint reply have raised certain preliminary objections to the effect that this Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the dispute as the complainants are resident of U.S.A. and their accounts are with the opposite party Branch at Ludhiana; that this Commission also lacks pecuniary jurisdiction and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties as opposite party No.1 – Bank falls within the control of Regional Office, Ludhiana and opposite party No.2 has no concern with the Regional office, Ludhiana. On merits of the case, it has been stated that even after various communications, the complainants never completed the formalities as required for withdrawal of amount and opposite party No.1 - Bank, being nationalized bank, cannot release the amount without any cogent evidence and proof as per directions of Reserve bank of India to any person in place of complainants for the sake of their interest. It has further been stated that the complainants are making bald allegations to shift burden on the opposite parties and they are solely negligent to perform their part to release the amount of FDRs and as such, there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties. It has further been stated that as and when, the complainants fulfilled the requirement, the opposite party Bank immediately released the FDRs. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

Rejoinder:-

5]                The complainants filed rejoinder, wherein they reiterated all the averments made in the complaint and repudiated those as stated in the reply of the opposite parties. Additionally, the complainants, in the rejoinder, stated that as they were in urgent need of their hard earned money of FDRs, therefore, they approached opposite party No.1 – Bank initially on 30.04.2022 and subsequently on 11.10.2022 but knowing well about the position of US dollar, opposite party No.1 did not encash the FDRs. Resultantly, the complainants suffered a huge loss as well as mental pain and trauma due to the illegal act and conduct of opposite party No.1 – Bank. It has further been stated that the amounts of FDRs were only released after the filing of the present complaint under the fear of getting punished by this Commission and even after the long delay of more than eight months, which compelled the complainants to suffer mental and physical harassment as they could not purchase the house at USA due to non-release of FDRs by opposite party No.1 – Bank. It has further been stated that opposite party No.1 – Bank resorted to deceitful tactics at various stages to obstruct complainants rightfull access to encash their FDRs and the same warrants indulgence of this Commission by directing opposite party No.1 – Bank to pay compensation of Rs.10 Lakhs alongwith litigation expenses of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint for causing mental agony, unwarranted harassment, irreparable loss of house at USA suffered due to delayed release of the amount of FDRs by opposite party No.1 – Bank.

6]                Parties led evidence in support of their respective cases.

7]                We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the documents and evidence on record and the written arguments very carefully.

Observations/findings of this Commission:

8]                First, we will decide the preliminary objections raised by the opposite parties. The objection raised by them qua territorial jurisdiction of this Commission to entertain and try the complaint has rendered infructous as this Commission vide order dated 24.05.2023, already, while taking judicial notice that since the Regional Office of the opposite party - Union Bank of India is situated at SCO No.64-65, Bank Square, Sector 17B, Chandigarh, registered the complaint with it. Therefore, this objections stands rejected.

9]                So far as the second objection with regard to the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, it may be stated here that Consumer Protection Act 2019 (in short ‘CPA 2019) provides a comprehensive framework to protect consumer interests, including mechanisms to address unfair contracts. Section 2(46) of CPA 2019 defines an "unfair contract" and lays out provisions for redressal. An unfair contract is defined as a contract between a consumer and a service provider that causes significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties to the disadvantage of the consumer. It empowers the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission to declare any terms of a contract null and void if found to be unfair. Consumers can approach the District, State, or National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions depending on the value of goods and services involved. These bodies have the authority to provide appropriate redressal including compensation and declaratory relief. Thus, we feel that if Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) are not paid back to borrowers, it may constitute an unfair contract under CPA 2019, especially if the terms of the contract are significantly imbalanced to the detriment of the borrower or if there is a failure to fulfill contractual obligations without a reasonable justification. Therefore, this Commission has the pecuniary jurisdiction under the provisions of CPA 2019 and objection raised in this regard stands rejected.

10]              As regards the objection that complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of mis-joinder of necessary parties, it may be stated here that once this Commission has held that it has the requisite territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint, this objection stands rejected having become infructous.

11]              Now coming to the merits of the case, the deficiency in rendering service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 – Bank is galore as it despite specific request of the complainants vide letter dated 30.04.2022, Annexure C-1 annexed with the rejoinder, failed to reopen the Saving Bank Accounts of the complainants and remit the amounts of FDRs in question prematurely to the said saving accounts as the complainants were in dire need of this money for purchasing a house in U.S.A. Further vide letter dated 10.11.2022, Annexure C-2, the complainants again requested opposite party No.1 – bank to make premature payment of FDRs as they were in urgent need of money and want to remit it to their account in USA. Per record, it is established that no response/reply/intimation was ever sent/forwarded by opposite party No.1 – Bank to the complainants, which further proves that opposite party No.1 – Bank had intentionally withheld the amount of FDRs of the complainants for so long. Despite completing all the formalities and submitting with opposite party No.1 – Bank all the required documents, the Bank kept on lingering the matter on one pretext or the other, which frustrated the very purpose of the complainants’ owning a house in U.S.A. It was only after filing the present complaint that opposite party No.1 – Bank has remitted the amounts of FDRs in the Account of the complainants, as is evident from statement of account placed on record by opposite party No.1 – Bank alongwith the reply. The complainants have been compelled to approach this Commission for justice for no fault on their part. They are sitting at a far place and opposite party No.1 has tried to take advantage of this situation and lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. What prevented opposite party No.1 – Bank to remit the amount of FDRs in the accounts of the complainants. When they are hammered with this litigation, they woke up from their deep slumber and remitted the amounts of FDRs in the accounts of the complainants during the pendency of the complaint. Non-repayment of FDRs creates a significant imbalance in the rights and obligations of the parties. In our view, the consumer’s (complainants) right to receive the amount of FDRs has been compromised by opposite party No.1 - Bank. Refusal to pay the amounts of FDRs without legitimate cause is definitely an unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.1 and is also unreasonable and detrimental to the complainants, who were to use the said amount for purchasing a house in U.S.A.

12]              It may be stated here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Wg. Cdr. Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (2020) 16 SCC 512 held that “The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done.” One can very well imagine the plight of the complainants who were kept away from the proceeds of their FDRs when they were in dire need of the said money for purchasing a house in U.S.A. It is settled law that the Consumer Commission should award adequate compensation to compensate the consumers for the harassment, agony and loss faced by him/her. It may also be stated here that Consumer Protection Act has been made to safeguard consumer rights. This Act is regarded as the 'Magna carta' (everyone is subject to the law, even the king, and guarantees the rights of individuals, the right to justice and the right to a fair trial) in the field of consumer protection for checking unfair trade practices, ‘defects in goods’ and ‘deficiencies in services’ and it works and protects consumers even in situations where they do not know their rights. In the case titled as Lucknow Development Authority v. M K Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243, the Hon’ble Supreme Court discussed about the extent of the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora to award just and reasonable compensation for the harassment and agony suffered by a consumer. In our considered view, for mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainants, they are definitely entitled to compensation. In our concerted view, if we grant lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- to the complainants including litigation cost, that will meet the ends of justice.

13]              However, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.2. As such, the complaint deserves dismissal qua it (opposite party No.2).

Relief granted by this Commission:-

14]              For the reasons record above, this complaint is partly accepted with cost against Opposite Party No.1 only. Accordingly, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony, harassment and also towards cost of litigation, to the complainants, within a period of 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which, the said amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of passing of this order, till realization.

15]              However, this complaint stands dismissed against opposite party No.2 with no order as to cost.

16]              Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

17]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.

18]              File be consigned to Record Room after completion.

Pronounced

13.06.2024

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

PRESIDNG MEMBER

 

 

 

 

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

 

Ad/-