State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Swaran Singh Saggu vs Canara Bank on 30 January, 2018
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016
Date of Institution : 02.12.2016
Date of Reserve : 12.01.2018
Date of Decision : 30.01.2018
Swaran Singh Saggu son of Late Harnam Singh Saggu, resident of
H. No. 745, Washwood Heath Road, Ward End, Birmingham, B8
2JY, UK; at present c/o Hotel Gobind Palace, SCO 6, Nayagaon,
(Near Punjab Engineering College) Chandigarh, through Ms.
Orvinder Kaur Saggu d/o Swaran Singh Saggu, holding Regd.
Lasting Power of Attorney dated 24.11.2014.
....Complainant
Versus
1. Canara Bank, having its Head Office at 112, J.C. Road,
Banglore (Bengluru), Karnataka-560002, through its Managing
Director/ Chief Executive Officer.
2. Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, 40 G.T. Road (Opposite
Punjab War Memorial Building), Jalandhar - 144 001
3. Canara Bank, Mahal (Goraya) Branch, G.T. Road, Goraya.
4. Mr. Deepak Bansal, previously posted as Branch Manager at
Canara Bank, Mahal (Goraya) Branch, G.T. Road, Goraya, at
present posted as Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Shahkot
(Punjab).
....Opposite parties
Consumer Complaint under Section 17 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 2
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Present:-
For the complainant : Sh. P.K. Jain, Advocate with
Sh. Raj Shekhar, Advocate
For the opposite parties: Sh. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate
GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ORDER
Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as Ops) through his duly constituted attorney vide registered lasting Power of Attorney registered on 24.11.2014 by the official of Public Guardian, Govt. of U.K. It has been averred in the complaint that the complainant is non-resident Indian (for short NRI). He migrated to U.K. from his native village Samrai, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar about 60 years ago and he acquired British Citizenship holding British Passport. He is aged about 88 years and is suffering from complex medical ailments, due to that he executed the power of attorney in favour of his daughter. During his visit to India in 2007, he deposited 19,000 British pounds in different foreign currency non- resident fixed deposits (hereinafter referred as FCNR) with Ops and was allocated Account Numbers 2111502000005 & 2111502000052. The FCNRs were originally to mature on 20.4.2009 and 14.6.2009 and as per the standard conditions, the Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 3 FCNRs were to be automatically renewed on yearly basis carrying the prevailing rate of interest. The complainant came to India in January, 2015 having left the UK on 31.12.2014. The complainant alongwith his daughter in January, 2015 visited Op No. 3 and met Op No. 4, who was working as Branch Manager at that time to get the amount of aforesaid FCNRs encashed and remitted to his account in Barclays Bank at Birmingham (UK). The details of the account are furnished to Op No. 4. However, at that time, he showed his inability to immediately encash the FCNRs and to deposit the amount of British ponds by stating that original records/file relating to aforesaid FCNRs is not traceable and stated that it will take one week to locate the record and stated that he would inform the complainant on mobile cell No. 99106-08336 of his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu @ Nicky. Then the complainant alongwith his daughter had been visiting to Op for six weeks but every time Op No. 4 stated that he could not locate the original file and also started to raise absolutely false and frivolous pretext for refusing the request that claim of the same is being made by Pritpal Singh son of the complainant and Mr. Gursewak Singh s/o Pritpal Singh. Their claim was totally false and frivolous because during the life time of the complainant, no person including Pritpal Singh and Gursewak Singh could have any right over the FCNRs, therefore, the Ops acted unfairly and in dis-regard to its obligation to provide services to the complainant. Pritpal Singh had even attempted to illegally detain the complainant in February, 2015 and he was rescued under the orders of Hon'ble High Court passed in Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 4 CRWP 358 of 2015, which was disposed of on 26.5.2015. On 20.3.2015, the complainant alongwith his daughter handed over a request to Op No. 4 for transferring FCNR to his UK Account. Indemnity bonds and copy of the passport were also submitted, however, when Op No. 4 was unreasonably and unfairly delaying the matter, he got issued legal notice dated 31.3.2015 to Op Nos. 2 and 4 and it was notified to the Ops that despite repeated requests, contacts and communications issued to the Ops, they had palpably failed to transfer the amounts of the FCNRs to his UK account because he was scheduled to visit UK in April, 2015 for his appointment with the Doctors for treatment of medical ailments. Three days time was given to the Ops to transfer the amount, otherwise, the complainant will be constrained to move the Hon'ble High Court for appropriate relief. The complainant then issued an email and made a complaint to the Ombudsman of the Ops in April, 2015. The office of the Ombudsman vide its letter dated 24.4.2015 intimated that the matter is being taken up with the concerned bank. Vide their letter dated 22.6.2015, it was intimated that the Ops informed that the complainant has not produced the original FCNRs deposit receipts and that the bank had requested the complainant to submit an indemnity bond on a required format alongwith guarantors and the guarantee of the surety submitted by the complainant was not known to the Canara Bank, therefore, the bank was unable to issue duplicate receipts whereas Op No. 4 had already accepted the original indemnity bond. During that process, the complainant came to know that FCNRs were in fact encashed Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 5 on 23.2.2015 and that Op No. 4 had taken a total false plea/motive with an oblique motive that the original FCNR and deposit receipts were not there. In the meantime, the complainant through his daughter vide email reiterated his complaint to the Ops stating that Mr. Deepak Bansal, Branch Manager had deliberately refused to update the address details of the Bank account of the complainant held in the bank and the particulars of the address as well as the account of the complainant with Barclays Bank given as far as in January, 2015 and affidavits were provided in February, 2015 but for the reasons best known the particulars were not updated in the record. Then the complainant filed a CWP No. 8871 of 2015 dated 5.5.2015. The said petition was however withdrawn after procuring the copy of the advice of legal section of the Ops and the legal advice of the legal Section would have vindicated the stand of the complainant and deprecated the grossly negligent and unfairly conduct of the Ops with the liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Despite various requests, the Ops did not give any information that the FCNR had been encashed on 23.2.2015 almost 1.5 months before issuing a legal notice and 2.5 months before filing the case before the Hon'ble High Court. Ops failed to mention as to what was the fate of the request of encashment and transfer of the amount in his UK bank account. Therefore, the complainant was again constrained to file another CWP No. 20273 of 2015 on 11.8.2015 against the Ops and through affidavit of Op No. 4, Ops had admitted that original FCNRs Certificates stood submitted to the Ops bank and that its amount stand credited in the saving bank Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 6 account of the complainant. The Ops failed to provide the cheque book, ATM card and passbook for the said saving account and complainant, his daughter and legal counsel were misled to believe for 14 months that FCNRs could not be encashed for fault of the complainant to provide documents and also failed to inform that their currency has been converted from English Pounds to Indian Rupee without the complainant's consent. In the said writ petition, various objections were taken by the Ops including the claim being preferred by Mr. Pritpal Singh Saggu but the Hon'ble High Court categorically held that the complainant is alive and gave the power of attorney to his daughter, therefore, there was no dispute to this effect that the amount deposited in two FCNRs belongs to the complainant, who wanted the amount therein to be transferred in his account in Barclays Bank of UK and the Ops had no authority to refuse the transfer that there may be a dispute in future and issued directions to Ops to transfer the amount to be covered by said FCNRs to the account of the complainant vide their order dated 28.4.2016. Further, the complainant was constrained to submit the application informing the Hon'ble High Court that the complainant and his wife due to their old age having various health problems and that he alongwith his daughter were staying in India for a long period and spent a lot for boarding and lodging, seeking directions in Civil Misc. Application No. 5652 of 2016 to the extent that the direction may kindly be issued to the Ops to transfer the entire amount to the account of the complainant in Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi to clear the dues of the Hotel as well friendly loans Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 7 procured by them and to pay the counsel fee. The Hon'ble High Court was pleased to pass the order dated 13.5.2016 whereby the prayer of the complainant was allowed and direction was issued that the amount so deposited with the Ops should be transferred to NRE account of the complainant bearing No. 1811436019 with Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi and after that the amount was deposited with the abovesaid account of the complainant. Due to aforesaid impugned acts of the Ops, the complainant has been made to suffer as under:-
(In Pounds)
i) Post from UK 24.70 22.6.15 12.45 23.6.15 12.25 ========= Sub Total 24.70
ii) Notarising documents 23.6.15 150.00 Sub Total 150.00
c) Flight tickets 16.12.14 - Joint 970.00 11.2.15 - Swaran extended ticket 350.38 7.5.15 - Swaran new Ticket to return to UK 485.00 7.5.15 - Orvinder new ticket to return to UK 512.38 11.1.16 - Joint new ticket return to India 960.00 18.7.16 - Joint new ticket return to India 1342.00 ========== Sub Total 4970.14 Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 8
d) Visa for Swaran 8.7.16 110.88 === ===== = 110.88 e) Lawyers Fees Total 920
iii) Loss of Income for Orvinder 31,045.52
iv) FCNR(2111502000005)-Maturity Date - 26.4.15 Maturity Amount 13,248.40 Amount received 12,864.00 Loss suffered 384.40
v) 10% intt. from maturity till May, 2016 1435.24 FCNR (2111502000052)-
Maturity date-14.6.2017 Maturity amount 13,884.81 Amount received 12,132.00 Loss suffered(From 2/15 to 5/16) 967.06 Sub Total 2786.71 Total English Pounds 40,007.41
vi) Transport expenses 61,162.00
vii) Lawyers fees 2,08,000.00
viii) Visa extension - 4.5.15 6,820.00
ix) Dental Treatment - Swaran 4.5.15 400.00
x) Medicine - Swaran 3924.00
xi) Clothes - Swaran 9824.00
xii) Laundry 65,490.00
xiii) Rent in Delhi 30,000.00
xiv) Hotel 4,92,200.00 Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 9 Total Indian Rupees 8,77,820.00 Complainant has also demanded Rs. 25,00,000/- on account of harassment, mental and physical torture, unfair trade practice on the part of Ops as well as deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 26.10.2016 to the Ops through her counsel but of no use. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops, this complaint has been filed by the complainant seeking directions against the Ops to refund the loss suffered on account of different counts, which are as under:-
a) 40,007.41 pounds or its equivalent in Indian Rupees as per the exchange rate prevailing on the day of decision of this complaint. However, as on the day of filing this complaint the same is valued @ Rs. 85/- per British Pounds, which comes to Rs. 34,00,629.85p
b) Rs. 8,77,820.00 as detailed in para No. 24 A (ii) above;
c) Rs. 25 Lacs as General Damages detailed in Para 24 B above.
Total of which comes to Rs. 67,78,449.85p.
2. Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law as the complaint has been submitted through his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu and the complainant is not in his sound mind since 2008, therefore, the complaint could have been filed through Legal Guardianship Certificate issued under the National Trust Act, 1999 under the Mental Health Act, 1987; the complainant has concealed the material facts that he has two Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 10 marriages and from the first marriage he had one son Pritpal Singh and from the second marriage, two daughters and both the parties had approached the bank and requested not to disburse the amount; on 26.3.2015, the bank intimated the complainant and her daughter that they will accede to any request only after the dispute is settled in the Court; the FCNRs could not be transferred to the Barclays Bank account of the complainant as the complainant had not produced the original FCNR's; the complainant had concealed the fact that on 13.2.2015 the complainant visited the Ops and opened NRE account, therefore, the complaint be dismissed and that the Ops came to know about the family dispute of the complainant and in the customer's interest his account was freezed. On merits, FCNRs account of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint has been admitted as a matter of record. It is also admitted that complainant alongwith his daughter Ms. Orvinder Kaur Saggu had visited in their Branch in January, 2015 and the concerned Manager had given all the details of 2 FCNRs from the system record as the file of the complainant pertaining to FCNRs' was not traceable due to shifting of the branch. It was denied that in January, 2015, the complainant had made any request for transfer of the money to Berclays Bank at Birmingham (UK). In fact the complainant was not in possession of original FCNRs and due to this reason, same was not renewed. On 13.2.2015, the complainant alongwith his son Pritpal Singh and grand-son Gursewak Singh visited the branch and made aware that they had dispute with his daughter and DDR was registered Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 11 against them and that the allegations raised against Op No. 4 are baseless. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 5.3.2015 and same was duly replied by this Bank. On the request of the complainant, the amount of FCNRs was encashed in account No. 2111103513390 of the complainant. It was also admitted that the proceedings were taken before the Banking Ombudsman and Banking Ombudsman clear the entire picture that bank will not acceded to any request till the dispute is settled and the entire picture was made clear to the complainant vide email dated 26.3.2015. The complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed by the Banking Ombudsman. Indemnity bond as required by the bank was also submitted by the complainant and FCNRs were redeemed on 23.2.2015. Other averments stated in the complaint were denied. It has been stated that the complaint is without merit, it be dismissed.
3. The parties were allowed to lead their respective evidence in support of their complaint. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit of Orvinder Kaur Saggu power of attorney holder as Ex. CW1/A and documents Exs. C-1 to C-22/17. On the other hand, Ops have tendered affidavit of Satish Kumar, Sr. Manager as Ex. OP-A and documents Exs. Op-1 to Op-8.
4. We have heard the counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents on the record.
5. Before taking the complaint on merits, some preliminary objections have been taken by the Ops, which are required to be Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 12 settled. An objection has been taken by the Ops that the complainant is not of sound mind since 2008 and accordingly, the Power of Attorney dated 24.11.2014 issued by the complainant in favour of his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu is not acceptable, therefore, the complaint filed by Orvinder Kaur Saggu on the basis of this Power of Attorney is not maintainable. However, the Power of Attorney Ex. C-1 has been attested by office of the Public Guardian. No doubt that the complainant in his complaint has referred that he was suffering from complex medical ailments but there is no evidence that this complainant is of unsound mind and was incompetent to execute the power of attorney in favour of his daughter, that power of attorney has also been referred in the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 20273 of 2015, decided on 28.4.2016 and in that CWP, directions have been given to respondent No. 1/Bank to transfer the amount deposited by the petitioner, much less converted in the Indian Rupee deposited in the saving Account No. 2111103513390 to the Account of the complainant with Barclays Bank, Birmingham (UK), therefore, there is no material on the record that complainant was not competent to execute the Power of Attorney in favour of his daughter. Moreover, the Ops opened his NRE account and one affidavit has also been relied upon by them as Ex. Op-8 whether he was in sound mind when bank is relying upon those documents. Therefore, we do not see any merit in this objection raised by the Ops and further there is no requirement of having the Legal Guardianship Certificate from the National Trust Act, 1999.
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 13
6. It has been stated that the complainant has two marriages and from the first marriage, one son Pritpal Singh and from the second marriage, two daughters were born and that there was dispute inter-se the relations and till the dispute is not settled, the amount of the FCNRs cannot be transferred in favour of the complainant. However, as held by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 28.4.2016, the amount has already been transferred in favour of the complainant on the basis of order passed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 20273 of 2015. It has also been held in that judgment that it is the amount of the complainant deposited by him and during his lifetime no LR has any right to deal with that amount and that the complainant is the sole owner of the amount and has a right to get it transferred according to his instructions, therefore, we do not see any substance in the objection raised by the counsel for the Ops that the amount could not be transferred in favour of the complainant due to inter-se dispute between the relations of the complainant.
7. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had 2 FCNRs of GBP 10000 opened on 20.4.2007 and due as on 20.4.2009 Ex. C-3 and another FCNR dated 13.6.2007 of GBP 9000 due to mature on 14.6.2009 Ex. C-4. These were being renewed from time to time and lastly the FCNR, which were presented to the Op Bank and closed by the Ops are Exs. Ops-3 and Ops-4. As per the averment in the complaint, the complainant alongwith his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu visited India in the month of January, 2015 and visited Op No. 3. At that time Op No. 4 was posted as the Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 14 Branch Manager and requested Op No. 4 to get the amount of said FCNR encashed and it be transferred to the account of the complainant in Barclays Bank at Birmingham (UK) but Op No. 4 showed his inability to immediately encash the said FCNRs as on account of shifting of the Branch premises, the record was not traceable. The complainant continued to visit the Ops but FCNRs were not encashed, rather, Op No. 4 took the plea that his son Pritpal Singh alongwith his son Mr. Gursewak Singh s/o Pritpal Singh has also raised the claim, about that it has been discussed above that during in the life time of the complainant, no other legal heir of the complainant had a right to lay hand on the amount of the complainant, therefore, the objection taken by the Ops that Pritpal Singh and his son Gursewak Singh are claiming this amount is without any basis and it was just a delaying tactics on the part of Ops and amounts to deficiency in services. On 20.3.2015, the complainant gave in writing also an application to the Ops Ex. C-5 for transferring the full amount accumulated in FCNRs No. 2111502000052 and 2111502000005 to his bank i.e. Barclays Bank (UK) having A/c No. 43974642 but no action was taken by the Ops. Even the indemnity bond was also executed by the complainant as demanded by them but to no result. Then on 31.3.2015, legal notice was got served upon the Ops through their counsel S.P. Soi Ex. C-6. Then the complaint was also filed to the Ops against Mr. Deepak Bansal, Branch Manager of Mahal Goraya Ex. C-12 alongwith change of address of Mr. Swaran Singh Saggu as under:-
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 15
"745 Washwood Heath Road, Ward End, Birmingham, B8 2JY, UK"
Then Orvinder Kaur Saggu, Power of Attorney of the complainant moved an application dated 22.8.2016 Ex. C-19 to the Office of Banking Ombudsman, alleging fraud and criminal intent to steal his money by Mr. Deepak Bansal, Manager at Canara Bank, Goraya, at that time posted at Hoshiarpur, Punjab but despite that all 2 FCNRs were not released in favour of the complainant. Ultimately, the complainant filed CWP No. 20273 of 2015, which was decided by the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 28.4.2016 and that CWP was allowed with a direction to the Ops Bank to transfer the amount deposited by the petitioner much less converted in Indian Rupee deposited in the Saving Bank Account No. 2111103513390 to the account of the petitioner, maintained in Barclays Bank, Birmingham (UK). The Ops in its reply admitted that the complainant visited the Op Bank in January, 2015 but at that time the record was not traceable and complainant was assured to inform on his mobile phone as and when the record of the case is traced. Then it has been stated that original FCNRs were not available with the complainant and DDR was got registered by Pritpal Singh against the complainant. In reply to the legal notice of the complainant, it was stated that the matter is sub-judice and the Branch will proceed to request only after the dispute in the Court is settled. But on the other hand, it has been stated that FCNRs were Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 16 redeemed on the request of the complainant on 23.2.2015. The copies of the FCNRs are Exs. Ops-3 and Ops-4, these are copies of the original, which were closed on 23.2.2015 and were transferred to his NRI saving bank account but when the counsel for the Op was confronted that as per the request of the complainant dated 20.3.2015, he had requested to transfer this amount in his account to Barclays Bank (UK) having A/c No. 43974642 and where are the instructions of the complainant to transfer this amount to his NRI account, if any. The counsel for the Op candidly admitted that there is no request by the complainant to transfer his FCNR amount to NRI Account and this fact stand fortified by the order of the Hon'ble High Court passed in CWP No. 20273 of 2015, decided on 28.4.2016. In this regard, the reply filed by the Op before the Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 20273 of 2015 dated 24.4.2016 is relevant. It has been submitted that now the petitioner has submitted the original FCNRs to the respondent Bank, thus, there is no dispute pertaining to the order dated 22.6.2015, which is clearly against their record because they had closed the FCNRs on 23.2.2015 and transferred the amount to NRI account of the complainant without any intimation to the complainant. Therefore, the plea that original FCNRs were not submitted to the Ops is just an excuse to create the defence. It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant filed an affidavit dated 28.4.2015 which have been produced by Op as Ex. Op-8in which it has been mentioned that during his stay with Pritpal Singh his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu used to go to counsel and Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 17 consult lawyers at Nakodar and Jalandhar and behind her back Pritpal Singh got signed an affidavit from him on 28.1.2015 under pressure and threat to his life and got the same attested on 30.1.2015 with regard to his accounts and FCNRs in Canara Bank, Goraya Branch. Similarly on 6.2.2015, he was made to sign another affidavit by Gursewak Singh under pressure and threat to his life. Therefore, possibility of transferring the amount of the complainant to NRI Account at the instance of Pritpal Singh and his son Gursewak Singh cannot be ruled out. From the above discussion, it is clear that from January, 2015, the complainant had been approaching the Op to transfer his FCNRs amount in his account in Barclays Bank (UK) and written request dated 20.3.2015 was submitted to the Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Mahal Goraya Branch Ex. C-5 but the Op did not transfer the amount as per the instructions of the complainant, rather, the amount was transferred to his another NRI account without any instructions and without any intimation to the complainant on 23.2.2015. Reply to the legal notice was given on 10.5.2015 wherein it was stated that you are advised to direct your client to file a suit before the Competent Court of Law and if your client is entitled to any amount of Swaran Singh Saggu, who is still alive and visiting the Bank regularly and was advised to withdraw the notice. The legal notice was served by his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu on the basis of Power of Attorney, therefore, she was entitled to serve this notice but in this notice it has not been referred to that the amount was already transferred in his NRI Account. In case it would have been Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 18 stated so he could make another request to transfer this amount to his account in Barclays Bank at Birmingham (UK) but for the reasons known to the Ops, they advised the complainant to go to the Court of Law to get this amount and ultimately, with the intervention of Hon'ble High Court in CWP No. 20273 of 2015, it was ordered to transfer the amount in U.K. account of the complainant, therefore, in case Ops would have been clear to the facts, the complainant was fully entitled to get this amount but the payment was denied for one reason or the other without any legal basis, therefore, unnecessarily the complainant has been constrained to go to the Court of Law to get his lawful amount from the Ops, which not amounts to deficiency in service but unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Then Civil Misc. Application No. 5652 of 2016 was filed by the complainant for modification of the order dated 28.4.2016 and that order was passed on 13.5.2016 and according to that order, the amount was ordered to be transferred in the NRE A/c No. 1811436019 maintained by the complainant in Kotak Mahindra Bank, New Delhi, therefore, ultimately, the amount was transferred in the NRI account of the complainant as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 13.5.2016.
8. It has been held above that there is deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, therefore, to what amount the complainant is entitled to compensation, if any?
9. The complainant in the complaint has demanded the following amounts of compensation:-
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 19
A. Special Damages
i) Costs & Expenditure in English Pounds
a) Post from UK
22.6.15 12.45
23.6.15 12.25
Sub Total 24.70
b) Notarising documents 23.6.2015 150.00
Sub Total 150.00
c) Flight Tickets
16.12.14 - Joint 970.00
11.2.15 - Swaran extended ticket 350.38
7.5.15 - Swaran New Ticket to return to UK 485.00
7.5.15 - Orvinder new ticket to return to UK 512.38
11.1.16 - Joint new ticket return to India 960.00
18.7.16 - Joint new ticket return to India 1342.00
Sub Total 4970.14
d) Visa for Swaran 8.7.16 110.88
Sub Total 110.88
e) Lawyers Fees
16.5.15 204.90
29.6.15 204.90
17.8.15 254.90
2.11.15 254.90
Sub Total 920.00
f) Loss of Income for Orvinder
Annual Salary 24,836.42
January 2015 to May 2015 8,278.80
January 2016 to November 2016 22,766.72
Sub Total 31,045.52
g) FCNR (2111502000005)-Maturity date -
26.4.2015
Maturity amount - 13,248.40
Amount received - 12,864.00
Loss suffered - 384.40
10% interest since date of Maturity till May, 1435.24
2016 -
FCNR (2111502000052) -
Maturity date - 14.6.2017
Maturity amount - 13,884.81
Amount received - 12,132.00
Loss suffered
(from Feb'2015 to May'2016)
(1752.81/29) x 16 = 967.06
Sub Total 2786.71
Total a) to g) - English Pounds 40,007.41
ii) Costs & Expenditure - Indian Rupees
a) Transport
6.3.15 - 25.3.15 - Taxi 32,200.00
4.4.15 - 19.1.16 - Taxi 27,900.00
Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 20
12.3.15 - Taxi 210.00
4.3.15 - Train 852.00
Sub Total 61,162.00
b) Lawyers Fees
3.2.15 33,000.00
7.2.15 20,000.00
14.3.15 25,000.00
20.3.15 25,000.00
30.4.15 35,000.00
30.6.15 20,000.00
21.9.2016 25,000.00
21.11.2016 25,000.00
Sub Total 2,08,000.00
c) Visa Extension - 4.5.15 6,820.00
Sub Total 6,820.00
d) Dental treatment - Swaran -
4.5.2015 400.00
Sub Total 400.00
e) Medicine - Swaran -
17.4.2015 150.00
17.4.2015 2,892.00
12.5.2016 301.00
12.5.2016 581.00
Sub Total 3,924.00
f) Clothes - Swaran -
8.3.2015 999.00
8.3.2015 2,175.00
9.3.2015 3,050.00
9.3.2015 3,600.00
Sub Total 9,824.00
g) Laundry 0 10.3.2015 - 21.11.2016 65,490.00
Sub Total 65,490.00
h) Rent in Delhi
15.2.15 - 15.5.2015 30,000.00
i) Hotel
10.3.2015 - 21.3.2015 20,200.00
25.3.2015 - 3.4.2015 16,750.00
19.4.2015 - 6.5.2015 28,550.00
10.1.2016 - 1.6.2016 2,26,200.00
19.7.2016 - 14.9.2016 90,700.00
15.9.2016 - 24.10.2016 65,000.00
25.10.2016 - 21.11.2016 44,800.00
Sub Total 4,92,200.00
Total a) to f) - Indian Rupees 8,77,820.00
General Damages 25,00,000.00
With regard to post from UK and notarizing documents, in case the documents were required in connection with encashment of the Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 21 FCNR, those were required then the Ops are not liable to compensate the complainant with regard to payment made by the complainant in connection with preparation of these documents, therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any special damages with regard to these damages. With regard to amounts spent on flight tickets, once the complainant had nominated and appointed his daughter Orvinder Kaur Saggu as Special Power of Attorney and only she was required to come to India and she has been pursuing the case with regard to payment of FCNR with the Ops, therefore, for one time she was required to come to India and in case due to delay on the part of Ops, she had to leave India and come again, the complainant can be awarded compensation of GBPs 970 and today's pound value in Indian Rupee is Rs. 88/-. In case the complainant has come to India, it was not necessary once he had appointed his daughter as Special Power of Attorney. In case he came to India for any other purpose then the Ops are not liable to pay this amount to the complainant.
10. With regard to Lawyers fee, receipts have been placed that she has paid Rs. 1,05,000/- Ex. C-20/31 to Advocate S.P. Soi and Rs. 50,000/- have been paid to Mr. P.K. Jain, Advocate. Therefore, in all she will be entitled to Lawyers fee as Rs. 1,55,000/-. The Ops are not liable to make deficiency of income of Orvinder Kaur Saggu because she could go back to the country and the case was being pursued through their Advocate. With regard to loss of income suffered in encashment, the FCNR is 384.40, GBP 967.06 in the 2nd FCNR, therefore, the complainant Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 22 will be entitled to this amount on account of loss of loss of interest. This fact has not been denied by the Ops in their reply to para No.
25. Again the Ops are not liable to pay for Visa extension, dental treatment, medicines, clothes and laundry etc., however, some reasonable expenses for stay in the Hotel are to be given, which are tabulated to Rs. 50,000/-. Apart from that, a sum of Rs. 1 Lac is granted to the complainant on account of mental and physical harassment, on account of delay in encashing the FCNRs by the Ops.
11. In view of above discussion, the complainant is entitled for the amount as under:-
GBP 970 x 88 = Rs. 85,360/-
GBP 384.40 x 88 = Rs. 33,827/-
GBP 967.06 x 88 = Rs. 85,101/-
=========
Rs. 2,04,288/-
Lawyers Fee Rs. 1,55,000/-
Hotel Stay charges Rs. 50,000/-
Compensation Rs. 1,00,000/-
==========
Rs. 5,09,288/-
========
11. Sequel to the above, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops, accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 5,09,288/- to the complainant, within a period of 45 Consumer Complaint No. 372 of 2016 23 days from the date of receiving of the copy of the order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order by filing application under Sections 25 & 27 of the CP Act against the Ops.
12. The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
13. The counsel for the parties/parties are directed to collect free certified copy of the order from the office of the Commission within a period of 15 days from the date of pronouncement.
(GURCHARAN SINGH SARAN) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER January 30, 2018.
as