State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ashwinin Anil Inamdar vs Icici Bank Ltd. Etc. on 29 November, 2019
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
Revision Petition no.RP/19/180
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Rajwada Chowk, Sangli
Corporate office at ICICI Bank Towers
Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ..... Revision Petitioner
Versus
1.Mr.Digamber Vaman Gurjar
R/o.Juna Rajwadi, Sangli
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 7th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Marg
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
Revision Petition no.RP/19/220
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Rajwada Chowk, Sangli
Corporate office at ICICI Bank Towers
Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051 ..... Revision Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr.Shantikumar Jinappa Shirte
Residing at 426, Khot Wada
Sangliwadi, Sangli
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 7th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Marg
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
1
Appeal no.A/19/939
Mrs.Ashwini Anil Inamdar
Flat no.7, Swapnil Apartments
Gulmohar Colony, Opp.Malu High School
South Shivajinagar, Sangli 416 416 ..... Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr.Avaneesh Trivedi
Dy.General Manager, HRMG
ICICI Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 6th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Road
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
Appeal no.A/19/940
Mr.Pradip Shankar Pujari
Flat no.6, Anant Apartments
ST Colony Road, Vishram Baug
Sangli 416 415 ..... Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr.Avaneesh Trivedi
Dy.General Manager, HRMG
ICICI Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 6th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Road
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
Appeal no.A/19/941
Mr.Vijaykumar Trimbakrao Bhirange
2
R/o.Mauli, Plot no.17
Near Ganpati Temple
Government Colony
Vishrambaug, Sangli 416 415 ..... Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr.Avaneesh Trivedi
Dy.General Manager, HRMG
ICICI Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 6th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Road
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
Appeal no.A/19/942
Mr.Anant Shrikrishna Kulkarni (Deceased)
Through Legal heir Smt.Sunita Anant Kulkarni
R/o.Vrundashri, Mali Colony
7th Lane, Warnali Road
Vishrambaug, Sangli 416 415 ..... Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr.Avaneesh Trivedi
Dy.General Manager, HRMG
ICICI Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 6th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Road
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
Appeal no.A/19/943
Mrs.Shashikala Arun Bramhanale
R/o.Plot no.7, Sharada Housing Society
3
Kupwad Road, Sangli 416 416 ..... Appellant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.
Through Mr.Avaneesh Trivedi
Dy.General Manager, HRMG
ICICI Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex
Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051
2.Indian Banks' Association
Stadium House, 6th Floor
Block no.3, Veer Nariman Road
Mumbai 400 020 .......Respondents
BEFORE: Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
A.K.Zade, Member
PRESENT: Shri.Mayur Bhojwani, Advocate along with Prangana Baura i/b M/s.Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. is present for petitioner. Shri.Athavale , Advocate is present for respondent in Revision Petition nos.RP/19/180 & RP/19/220.
Shri.Athavale, Advocate is present for appellants. Shri.Mayur Bhojwani -Advocate along with Prangana Baura i/b M/s.Manilal Kher Ambalal & Co. is present for respondent No.1 in all appeal nos.A/19/939 to A/19/943 ORAL ORDER Per Hon'ble Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
1. These appeals as well as revision petitions are directed against interim order below Exhibit-1 dated 17/07/2019 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangli in consumer complaint bearing nos.231/2017, 232/2017, 233/2017, 234/2017, 175/2017, 176/2017, 24/2018 & 76/2018. It appears that in the written version tendered by the opponents in respect of these complaints, there was an objection raised as to jurisdiction of the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum to entertain the 4 complaints u/sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Learned District Forum making reference to plethora of rulings took premature view that consumer complaint bearing nos.231/2017, 232/2017, 233/2017, 234/2017, 24/2018 & 76/2018 according to Learned District Forum cannot be entertained and chose to dismiss the complaints and decided to hear only two complaints bearing nos.175/2017 & 176/2017. Aggrieved by this interim order, both the parties are before us.
2. In order to know what the consumer disputes are we have gone through nature of complaints. It appears that certain employees preferred to file complaints against ICICI Bank Ltd. and another on the ground that the employees were employed in Sangli Bank Ltd. at Sangli and were bound by their agreements with the bank concerned in respect of terms and conditions of their services with the bank in respect of retirement as well as pensions, etc. It is specific contention of the employees that Sangli Bank Ltd. in which they were employed was bound to pay pension to the employees under the 'Sangli Bank Ltd. Employees Pension Regulations 1995'. However, the bank had refused to pay pension opted by the employees upon resignation. Complainants contended that they are now senior citizens and action on the part of ICICI Bank Ltd., which is successor bank is not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice and complainants lodged complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming that lawful dues on account of pension amounts is payable from the opponents to complainants and non payment of the same amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
3. The crux of the contention on behalf of complainants is that since more than 20 years service is rendered by the complainants to the bank concerned and opted for pension payment upon their resignation, amount due as pension was payable from the opponent and refusal on the part of the bank to pay the amounts amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The 5 contention on behalf of employees was that they are 'consumers' within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and are entitled for payment of pension dues as well as compensation on account of mental and physical harassment on the ground that bank has indulged into deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
4. Prima facie, such complaints could not have been dismissed at interim stage. In other words, without giving full opportunity of hearing and without considering affidavits on record as also rulings cited in support of rival contentions. In the light of facts and circumstances of the case, Learned District Forum could not have dismissed the complaints at interim stage even before admitting them. Prima facie, when contention is raised that employees as 'consumers' are entitled to claim certain dues on account of agreements between the employees and employer and that employer had indulged into deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice, in view of section 3 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, employee as a 'consumer' can opt for additional/supplemental remedy available with him or her and can insist upon the Consumer Fora to decide the questions raised in consumer dispute as follows:-
1. Whether complainants are 'consumers' within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
2. Whether opponent has indulged into unfair trade practice and/or deficiency in service?
3. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation on account of mental and physical harassment and if yes, what is just and reasonable quantum of compensation?
5. Therefore, without adverting to these questions on the basis of affidavits on record filed by rival parties as also pleadings made in the case, including written submissions, if any, the shortcut adopted by the Learned Forum 6 below is unjust and improper. We therefore allow the appeals bearing nos.A/19/939 to A/19/943 filed by the employees/complainants and at the same time dismiss the revision petitions filed by ICICI Bank Ltd. for the aforesaid reasons and direct the Learned Forum below to give full opportunity of hearing to the parties, permitting them to file their respective affidavits and documents, rulings, etc. so that consumer disputes raised are decided on merits in accordance with the law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned orders and dispose of these appeals and dismiss the revision petitions bearing nos.RP/19/180 & RP/19/220.
Pronounced on 29th November, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] President [A.K.Zade] Member Ms 7