National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Savita Kom Nataraj Naragund & 4 Ors. vs T. Ishwar & 13 Ors. on 21 July, 2020
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 307 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 308 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 309 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 310 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 311 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 312 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 313 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 314 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 315 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 316 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 317 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 318 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 319 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 320 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 321 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 322 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 323 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 324 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 325 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 326 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) REVISION PETITION NO. 327 OF 2020 (Against the Order dated 21/06/2019 in Appeal No. 2168/2016 of the State Commission Karnataka) 1. SAVITA KOM NATARAJ NARAGUND & 4 ORS. CHOWKIMATH, SIRSI, UTTARA KANNADA - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. T. ISHWAR & 13 ORS. BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, C BLOCK HAVERI - 581401 KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. PREM NARAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. C. VISWANATH,MEMBER For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandrashekhar A Chakalabbi, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 21 Jul 2020 ORDER These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner Savita Kom Nataraj Naragund & ors. against the common order dated 21.06.2019 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal Nos.2168-2176 and 2178- 2189 of 2016 filed by the petitioners herein against the orders of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttar Kannada at Karwar, (in short 'the District Forum') passed in CC Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46 of 2014. As the issue is same in all the revision petitions and the impugned order is also similar in nature, these revision petitions are being decided together.
2. The brief facts of these cases are that the petitioner is the wife of the erstwhile partner of a firm namely, Gajanan Finance Corporation. The partnership firm took amounts from the respondents/complainants for fixed deposit to be issued by the firm. The fixed deposit receipts were also issued to the respondents. However, the payments were not made by the firm on the date of maturity of these fixed deposits. Accordingly, the respondents/complainants filed consumer complaints with the District Forum being CC Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46 of 2014. These complaints were resisted by the petitioners by filing the written statement in each case, however, the District Forum allowed the complaints by passing the following order:-
"The complaint nos.25/2014, 26/2014, 27/2014, 28/2014, 29/2014, 30/2014,31/2014,32/2014,33/2014,34/2014,35/2014,36/2014,37/2014,38/2014,39/2014,40/2014,41/2014,42/2014,43/2014,44/2014,45/2014 and 46/2014 are allowed in part with cost.
The OPs are hereby directed to pay jointly and severally to the complainant-
1. In CC No.25/2015 Rs.6,52,937/- towards S.B.A./C balance amount.
2. In CC No.26/2014 Rs.1,80,000/- in CC No.27/2014 Rs.1,60,000, in CC No.28/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.29/2014, Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.30/2014, Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.31/2014, Rs,1,80,000/-, in CC No.32/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.33/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.34/2014, Rs.90,000/- in CC No.35/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.36/2014, Rs.,80,000/-, in CC No.37/2014, Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.38/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, inCC No.39/2014, Rs.90,000/- in CC No.40/2014 Rs.1,80,000/-, in CC No.41/2014 Rs.1,60,000/-, in CC No.42/2014 Rs.40,000/-. In CC No.43/2014 Rs.90,000/-, in CC No.44/2014, Rs.90,000/-, and in CC No.46/2014 Rs.90,000/-, toward FDs maturity amount with interest @12% pa in respect of CC No.26/2014 to 46/2014 and in CC No.25/2014 from the date of last entry at Ex.C-1 till the date of deposit of the amount before the Forum.OPs are granted for one month time for depositing the amount before the Forum from the date of receipt of this order.
3. The liability in respect of OP-2 to 5 is restricted to the estate of late Nataraj J. Nargund in their hands. The liability of OP-10(a) to (d) is also similarly to the estate of deceased OP-10 in their hands.
4. The OPs also hereby directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation in each case.
5. The OPs also hereby directed to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost in each case."
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioners herein preferred appeals being FA Nos.2168 to 2189 of 2016 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 21.06.2019 dismissed these appeals.
4. Hence the present revision petitions.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at the admission stage. Learned counsel stated that the amounts were deposited as investment by the respondents/complainants and therefore, the transactions were of commercial nature. The cases of the respondents are not covered under the explanation attached to Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, the complainants were not maintainable before the District Forum as the transactions were for commercial purpose. Learned counsel referred to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab University Vs. Unit Trust of India and others, (2015) 2 SCC 669, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed the following:-
"21. It is thus seen from the above extracts from Laxmi Engg. Works that Section 2(1) (d)(i) is discussed exclusively by this Court. We are of the opinion that clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act must be interpreted harmoniously and in light of the same, we find that the Explanation following Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act would be clarificatory in nature and would apply to the present case and as held by this Court in Laxmi Engg. Works, the term "commercial purpose" must be interpreted considering the facts and circumstances of each case."
6. On the basis of the above judgment, it was stated by the learned counsel that FDRs were purchased for investment purpose and for earning profits and therefore, the complainants/respondents are not the consumers. Hence the orders passed by the fora below are illegal are required to be set aside.
7. It was stated that the fora below also failed to appreciate that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainants have resulted in the investigating officer filing a 'B' report which is indicative of the fact that there was no material against the petitioners.
8. It was further stated that both the fora below ought to have appreciated that Mr. Nataraj was the face of the partnership firm and only upon his death that the claims have been made by the complainants. There was no explanation for the complainants for not raising claims any time before the death of Mr. Nataraj. The complainants have clearly taken advantage of the death of the important person in the partnership firm by filing the present complaints.
9. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and examined the record. The banking services are covered under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Section 2(o) reads as under:-
"2(o) "service" means service of any description which is made available to potential [users and includes, but not limited to, the provision of] facilities in connection with banking, financing insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, [housing construction] entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service;"
10. Therefore, a person can file complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the deficiency in service for a service provided by a bank or a financial institution. Moreover, this Commission in Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. CTJ 141 (CP) (NCDRC), has taken a view that the banking services are covered under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. It has been held:-
"18. Further, what is commercial purpose is discussed by the Apex Court in various decisions.
19. We would refer to few relevant judgments:
In Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Shiv Kumar Joshi, (2000) 1 SCC 98, the Court elaborately considered the provisions of Sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) as well as earlier decisions and held that-
"The combined reading of the definitions of "consumer" and "service" under the Act and looking at the aims and object for which the Act was enacted, it is imperative that the words "consumer" and "service" as defined under the Act should be construed to comprehend consumer and services of commercial and trade-oriented nature only. Thus any person who is found to have hired services for consideration shall be deemed to be a consumer notwithstanding that the services were in connection with any goods or their user. Such services may be for any connected commercial activity and may also relate to the services as indicated in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act."
21. The aforesaid ratio makes it abundantly clear that services may be for any connected commercial activity, yet it would be within the purview of the Act.
29. Further, from the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that even taking wide meaning of the words 'for any commercial purpose' it would mean that goods purchased or services hired should be used in any activity directly intended to generate profit. Profit is the main aim of commercial purpose. But, in a case where goods purchased or services hired in an activity which is not directly intended to generate profit, it would not be commercial purpose."
11. In Canara Bank Vs. M/s. Jain Motor Trading Company & Anr., F.A. No. 432 of 2008, decided on 29.07.2013; this Commission has held as follows:
"10. We also do not accept the contention of Counsel for Appellant/Bank that Respondent being a commercial firm is not a 'consumer' as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Commercial concerns per se are not excluded from filing a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 if it does not involve direct generation of profits or resale. Also as stated in the instant case, the OCC facility was sought from Appellant/Bank to help resolve the financial difficulties being faced by Respondent which was not per se a commercial activity generating profits. As pointed out by Counsel for Respondent, these aspects are well settled in a number of judgments, including of this Commission as also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court e.g. Harsolia Motors Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [I (2005) CPJ 27 (NC)] and Madan Kumar Singh Vs. Distt. Magistrate, Sultanpur [(2009) 9 SCC 79]."
12. From the above decisions, it is amply clear that a person availing the services of a bank is a consumer and can file a consumer complaint before the consumer forum for the deficiency on the part of the bank.
13. It has been argued by the learned counsel that the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainants have not resulted into any action against the petitioners. It is an accepted principle of law that the criminal liability and the civil liability are two different aspects of liability. The learned counsel has only stated that the investigating officer has filed a 'B' report. It is not clear whether the report has been accepted by the competent criminal court. Even if there is no criminal liability, the civil liability may remain and can be decided. It has been argued by the learned counsel that Mr. Nataraj was the main partner of the partnership firm and the claim has been filed after his death and the complainants have taken advantage of his death. It is not the case of the petitioners that the claims are fraudulent. In fact, a partnership firm is not a legal person and the partners are responsible for any act or omission on the part of the partnership firm. Hence, the liability clearly devolves on the partner and thus, it will also extend to the LRs of the partner if expired. Thus, from this angle also, we do not find any merit in the revision petitions preferred by the petitioners.
14. Based on the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the revision petitions as no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error is found in the order dated 21.06.2019 passed by the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Accordingly, the revision petition Nos.307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317,318,319,320,321,322,323,324,325,326 and 327 of 2020 are dismissed at the admission stage.
...................... PREM NARAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... C. VISWANATH MEMBER