STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.            Manoj Gupta, aged 40 years, son of late Sh. A.L. Gupta.

2.            Vipin Gupta, aged 45 years, son of late Sh. A.L. Gupta.

Both resident of House No.1664, Manimajra, UT, Chandigarh.

…… Complainants

V e r s u s

1.            Union Bank of India through its Chairman, Managing Director & General Manager, 239 Vidhan Bhavan Marg, Central Office, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021 (Head Office)

2.            Union Bank of India, through its Branch Manager, SCO 802, N.A.C, Manimajra, Chandigarh (Branch Manager)

              .... OPs

Complaint under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned as Section 12) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDING MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:  Sh. Neeraj Sobti, Adv. for the complainants.

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for OPs.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                   According to the complainants, their father late Sh. A.L. Gupta, who was the sole proprietor of M/s George Printing Works, Manimajra, Chandigarh,  opened various accounts i.e. saving accounts, current accounts and funds in the shape of FDRs with the OPs total valuing Rs.19,09,429.48. After the death of their father, they approached the OPs for the release of funds lying in the said accounts, but they were advised to get the succession certificate.  They told that they were not required to obtain a succession certificate but the OPs did not budge.  Ultimately the complainant filed a case before the civil court to get the succession certificate which was granted on 15.3.2011 and the notarized copy thereof was supplied to OP-2 on 16.3.2011.  However, OP-2 vide letter dated 11.4.2011 informed the complainants that their claim was got scrutinized through empanelled lawyer who took some objections.  On 16.4.2011 they also illegally debited a sum of Rs.1,500/- from the account of complainant No.1 towards fee of the said empanelled lawyer. The complainants immediately approached OP-2 and also replied their letter on 9.5.2011 and requested for payment of the amount after which they credited some amount but lingered on the matter regarding balance amount. Hence this complaint under Section 17 (wrongly mentioned as Section 12) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) alleging that the acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

2.                      The OPs in their joint written reply at the outset took preliminary objection that the complainants are not consumers; that they have got no cause of action etc.  On merits, the OPs did not dispute most of the facts. However, it was stated that the complainants were informed that their accounts were credited with Rs.26,370/- each and they were asked to make efforts to get the original guarantee papers form the BSNL so that the FDRs could be released to them.  It was pleaded that the balance amount of FDRs was not released as the same was pledged on account of bank guarantees issued by OPs to the BSNL for margin money. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.                      The complainants filed rejoinder to the reply denying and contradicting the contentions of the OPs and re-iterating the averments made in the complaint. 

4.                      Both the parties have been given opportunity to lead evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully.

6.                      The complaint was opposed by the OPs on the ground that the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.  Their contention is that the bank guarantees were issued by the OPs on the request of M/s George Printing Works which was doing a commercial activity which bank guarantees have not been returned to the OP Bank due to which, the amount in the personal accounts of Shri A.L. Gupta (since deceased) cannot be released.  This argument does not make any head or tail. There is no dispute about it that the amount, which the complainants want back, was in the shape of FDRs/STDs in the personal name of Shri A.L. Gupta (since deceased).  Depositing of the amount by Sh. A.L. Gupta in the shape of FDRs cannot be termed as a commercial transaction. Further, even if, at the asking of Sh. A.L. Gupta, some bank guarantees were subsequently issued in the name of a firm, the act of depositing the amount, by Shri A.L. Gupta, would not become a commercial transaction.  Issuing of bank guarantees was a subsequent independent transaction having no effect on the event of depositing of the amount by Sh. A.L. Gupta.  The crux of the matter is that the FDRs/STDs were in the name of Shri A.L. Gupta and not in the name of any commercial firm. The complainant has obtained a succession certificate, copy of which is Annexure C-1, to get back the said amount. There is no commercial activity involved if the complainants want the said amount back. The complainant would be well within the ambit of a ‘consumer’ and the present complaint would be maintainable before this Commission. This argument is, therefore, devoid of merit.

7.                      The OPs have not released the amount to the complainants on the ground that it had issued in the past certain bank guarantees to the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) and though the validity of those bank guarantees has since expired, yet the original bank guarantees have not been received back and, therefore, the bank would not release the amount, lying in the personal accounts, till the receipt of the bank guarantees from the BSNL.   We do not find any justification in the act of the OPs.

8.                      It is admitted case of the OPs, as mentioned in their reply, that the bank guarantees were given by them to the BSNL and not to the complainants.  It is not their case if the complainants are having those bank guarantees in their personal capacity.  The OPs, therefore, cannot ask the complainants to return the bank guarantees. It is, in fact, the BSNL who should be approached by the OPs for the return of the bank guarantees if ever they require the same.  Secondly, it is admitted that the said bank guarantees have since expired in the year 2006 or 2007.   It is also admitted that the said bank guarantees cannot be enforced against the OPs and their liability under the said bank guarantees has ceased to exist since long.  It is not understood as to what for the OP Bank requires those bank guarantees which have no value as on date.  The insistence of the OPs for the said bank guarantees, and that too from the complainants to whom these were never given nor are the same held by them, is, therefore, devoid of merit and a useless adventure. 

9.                      The OPs do not dispute the right of the complainants to claim the amount deposited with it in the bank.  Otherwise also, the succession certificate (Annexure C-1) empowers the complainants to receive the said amount though according to the complainants they did not require any such succession certificate and the amount should have been released to them without pushing them in the unnecessary litigation and avoidable expenditure of time and money.

10.                  The ld. Counsel for the complainants has also referred to Annexure C-6 in which there is an entry dated 16.4.2011 debiting a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards the fee of the advocate who was engaged by the OPs for their own work.  It is argued that if the OPs have engaged a lawyer, it is for them to pay the fee to him and not the complainants.  We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainants are entitled to the refund of the said amount also.

11.                  In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the present complaint succeeds and the same is allowed with costs.  The following directions are issued :-

a)            The OPs shall release the principal amount alongwith interest, as applicable with respect to all the FDRs/STDs, in favour of the complainants as on 16.3.2011, minus the amount already paid.

b)           The OPs shall supply the statement of account with respect to each FDR/STD to the complainants since its deposit till 16.3.2011.

c)            The OPs shall pay interest on the due amount @ 12% per annum since 17.3.2011 till its actual payment to the complainants.

d)           The OPs shall refund the amount of Rs.1,500/-, deducted as Advocate’s fee, alongwith interest @ 12% per annum since 16.4.2011 till the amount is paid back to the complainants.

e)            Since the OPs have harassed the complainants and did not release the amount promptly, thereby causing them mental tension and harassment, the OPs shall pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

          The above referred amounts, alongwith litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-, shall be paid to the complainants within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the same alongwith interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of this order till the payment is actually made to the complainants.

                   The OPs shall, however, be free to recover the interest, compensation and litigation costs from the Bank Manager(s) who, by imposing unnecessary conditions, failed to release the amount promptly and pushed the parties into litigation.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

16^th December, 2011

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg