State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Axis Bank Ltd. vs M/S Parakh Service Station on 30 August, 2013
DRAFT State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO.FA/204/2011 (Arising out of order dated 30/11/10 in Case No.78/S/2009 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Siliguri) DATE OF FILING:12/04/11 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:30/08/13 APPELLANTS : 1) AXIS Bank Ltd. Formerly UTI Bank Ltd. 131, Maker Tower F, Cuffe Parade, Colaba Mumbai-400 005 ( Maharashtra) 2) Branch Manager AXIS Bank Ltd. Formerly UTI Bank Ltd. Spectrum House Sevoke Road, Siliguri Darjeeling-734 001 RESPONDENT : M/s Parakh Service Station P.O. Bidhan Nagar (NH-31) P.S. Phansidewa District-Darjeeling And also at M/s Amalgamated Compound Nehru Road P.O. & P.S. Siliguri District-Darjeeling BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas Mukherjee President HONBLE MEMBER : Sri S. Coari HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. M. Roy FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Soumyojit Mukhopadhyay Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. S. K. Das Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
HONBLE JUSTICE SRI KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Siliguri in case no.78/S/2009 dated 30/11/10 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.1,000/- and directing the OP Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally to remit the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- with accrued interest @ 9% from 01/10/07 till the date of passing judgment in the account of the complainant within 45 days failing which the said amount will carry further interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the instant case, that is, 24/09/09 till the realization of the amount. The Learned District Forum also directed the OPs to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/-. The Learned District Forum also recorded that the complainant was further entitled to get an order of interest @ 9% from February, 2007 to September, 2007 over the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- from the OPs.
The case of the complainant/respondent, in short, is that the OP bank sanctioned the channel finance facility to the complainant firm vide its letter dated 19/01/07 and also issued a Trade Acceptance Card for use by the complainant firm on the POS Terminal provided at IOCLs Siliguri Depot with limit of Rs.50 lakh on certain terms and conditions as enumerated in the said letter. At the time of granting the aforesaid loan the OP bank also obtained four numbers of pre-signed blank cheques bearing nos.401771 to 401774 of the complainants firm.
The OP bank debited a sum of Rs.7,80,000/- on 22/02/07 against purchase of stocks by the complainant firm for Rs.3,90,000/- only from IOCL on 20/02/07. The Trade Acceptance Card was used by the complainant for purchasing stocks of Rs.3,90,000/- only, but the amount as debited by the bank in its statement of accounts was to the tune of Rs.7,80,000/-. The complainant could not understand as to how Rs.7,80,000/- was debited for the purchase of stocks of Rs.3,90,000/- in a single entry. The complainant, accordingly, pointed out this anomaly of excess debit as made by the OP bank. The bank replied vide e-mail dated 25/04/07 that the card was swiped for two valid transactions. Thereafter the complainant replied by e-mail dated 29/05/07 and categorically stated that there was single transaction and not twice as stated by Sri Uttam Saha on behalf of the bank. Subsequently, on 05/09/07 said Sri Uttam Saha of the OP bank informed the complainant by e-mail and acknowledged that there was a discrepancy of Rs.3,90,000/- debited from the account of the complainant and transferred to IOCL account that has not been resolved.
Subsequently, the debit entry of Rs.7,80,000/-was rectified on 01/10/07 by the OP bank after repeated requests and persuasion from time to time by the complainant. On the one hand, the OP bank has credited the said amount of Rs.3,90,000/- in the account of the complainant firm but, on the contrary, again debited the amount with a new wrong/unauthorized entry for a sum of Rs.3,78,000/- on 01/10/07 showing the effective date as 07/04/07. It has been categorically stated by the complainant that the complainant firm had not purchased the stocks worth Rs.3,78,000/- from IOCL on 01/10/07. Because of such discrepancy and excess debit the complainant filed the complaint before the Learned District Forum praying for an order for refund of Rs.3,78,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- from February, 2007 to September, 2007 and on Rs.3,78,000/- from October, 2007 till realization and also Rs.3 lakh as damages and Rs.2 lakh on the ground of mental pain and agony.
The OPs contested the case denying the material allegations raised in the complaint. The Learned District Forum after considering the materials on record passed the impugned judgment and order.
It has been submitted by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent swiped the card and the amount was debited accordingly. It is submitted that the appellant acted on the basis of instruction from IOCL. It is contended that it was a dispute between IOCL and the complainant firm. It is submitted that the complainant firm is not registered one and under the provisions of the Partnership Act no case can be instituted by an unregistered firm. It is also contended that the C. P. Act cannot be said to be an exception to the provision contained in the Partnership Act.
It is submitted that the complainant is not a consumer.
The Learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the stock was purchased to the tune of Rs.3,90,000/-, but the debit was made to the extent of Rs.7,80,000/-. It has been submitted that the card was swiped once only and not twice. It is submitted that Rs.3,90,000/- was reversed to complainants account on 01/10/07. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has referred to Para-7 of the petition of complaint and contended that for the second time the debit was made to the extent of Rs.3,78,000/-. It is contended that the bank acted as an agent of IOCL and IOCL is not a necessary party. The Learned Counsel for the respondent has referred to the decisions reported in III (2006) CPJ 1 (SC) [Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B. N. Raman]; II (2000) CPJ 11 (SC) [Vimal Chandra Grover Vs. Bank of India];
III (2010) CPJ 280 (NC) [Autocade Vs. Standard Chartered Bank & Ors.]; II (2007) CPJ 91 [P. Krishna Reddy & Anr. Vs. Yagnesh Upadhyay & Anr.]; III (2009) CPJ 153 [Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Chandigarh Housing Board].
We have heard the submission made by both sides.
The main contention of the respondent/complainant is that on 22/02/07 the complainant found that the bank debited the sum of Rs.7,80,000/- against purchase of stocks by the complainant firm for Rs.3,90,000/- only from IOCL on 20/02/07. The bank replied that the card was used twice to which the complainant replied that it was used once only and not twice. Subsequently, the bank detected the discrepancy and on 01/10/07 the bank credited the amount of Rs.3,90,000/- with the account of the complainant. It is the further allegation of the respondent/complainant that the bank again wrongly debited the amount of Rs.3,78,000/- on 01/10/07. It is the specific contention of the respondent/complainant that on 01/10/07 the complainant had not purchased the stocks worth Rs.3,78,000/- from IOCL. It appears that the Learned District Forum has considered all the aspects of the case and has rightly passed the order impugned.
As regards the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the respondent/complainant is not a consumer being an unregistered firm, it appears from Section 2(m) of the C. P. Act that person has been defined as including
(i) a firm whether registered or not, (ii) a Hindu undivided family, (iii) a cooperative society and (iv) every other association of persons whether registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or not. By virtue of operation of Section-3 of the C. P. Act coupled with the provision contained in Section 2(m), we are of the considered view that the complainant being an unregistered firm can file the petition of complaint and the complaint is maintainable.
Having heard both sides and on perusal of the papers on record, we are of the view that there is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Learned District Forum.
In the result, the appeal fails and the same stands dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed. We make no order as to costs MEMBER(SC) MEMBER(L) PRESIDENT