State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Uco Bank vs Rajeshwar Kapoor on 2 February, 2006
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 2nd February 2006 Appeal No.FA-508/2005 (Arising from the order dated 17-06-2005 passed by District Forum(New Delhi), K.G. Marg, New Delhi in Complaint Case No. OC/1678/2004) UCO Bank Appellant Delhi High Court, Through New Delhi. Ms. Sunita Sharma & Mr. Radha singh Advocates. Versus Shri Rajeshwar Kapoor Respondent A-35, Nizamuddin East, In person. New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal- Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) By the order of the High Court of Delhi a Fixed Deposit Receipt was issued in favour of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi. At the time of discharge the appellant-Bank deducted its commission of Rs. 7,649/-. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum.
Vide impugned order dated 17-06-2005 the District Forum has directed the appellant to refund the amount of Rs. 7,649/- deducted as commission from the amount payable to the respondent and also pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation.
2. Through this appeal the impugned order has been assailed mainly on the ground that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent since the FDR was made at the instance of the High Court in favour of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi in pursuance of order dated 30-09-2000 and the respondent was paid the proceeds after deduction of prescribed commission which was service charges prescribed by its Head Office as per directions of Indian Bank Association. It is also contended that the deposit was sought to be transferred to another bank and therefore charges @ Re. 1 per Rs. 1,000/- or part as prescribed by circular dated 10-07-2000 were levied. Over and above the respondent himself vide letter dated 17-12-2003 requesting it to issue Bankers Cheque the bank was entitled to deduct the commission.
3. The objection of the appellant that the respondent is not a consumer is wholly groundless as Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act covers those persons also who are beneficiary of the service. In this case the respondent alone was beneficiary of the banking service in question. It was immaterial whether the amount was deposited in the name of Registrar General of High of Delhi but the ultimate beneficiary was the respondent. The very fact that the amount was released in favour of the respondent in pursuance of the orders of the High Court further fortifies the status of the respondent as a consumer.
4. As regards the deduction of commission and the letter referred by the appellant, the respondent contends that he had been going to the appellant persistently for several days and appellant told him that unless and until he gave the letter that he should issue bankers cheque he would not get the bankers cheque which he did as he had no other option.
5. In our view such a practice is coercive practice. Even otherwise letter itself shows that it was not confined to the bankers cheque only but respondent had written etc. etc. meaning thereby he was entitled for other refunds also.
6. Even if we accept that the respondent had given this letter of bankers cheque still the fact remains that he was entitled for entire amount towards the FDR and no commission was deductable from this amount. Once the High Court had ordered for release of the FDR, the appellant-Bank had no business to deduct any amount towards commission or any other aspect as respondent and for that purpose every consumer is entitled to the maturity amount of FDR.
7. In view of the foregoing reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.
8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
9. Announced on the 2nd day of February 2006.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj