State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chief Manager, Uco Bank, vs Mr. Lal Tolani on 18 November, 2021
1
REDRESSAL
CONSUMER DISPUTES
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE
COMMISsION:HYDERABAD
ON THE
FA NO.222/2019 AGAINST cC No.138/2016
FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-1,HYDERABAD.
Between
Chief Manager,
UCO Bank, Banjara Hills Branch,
8-2-64, Ground Floor, Road No. 10,
Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500 034 Appellant/
India.
Opposite party
And
Mr. Lal Tolani, R/o.6 Crown Reach,
145 Grosvenor Road, London SWIV3JU,
Phone No:0044-2078282459,
Fax:0044-2078286251,
Rep. through Contact person in India,
Ms.Mahima Kriplani at 6C Prem 22023247,
Fax:022-22886821,
Respondent/
Email:[email protected]
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant M/s.G.M.Mohiuddin
Counsel for the Respondent M/s.K.Viseswara Rao
Hon'ble Sri Justice M.S.K. Jaiswal, President.
CORAM:
And
Hon'ble Smt. Meena Ramanathan, Lady Member
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE
Order:
the appellant/opposite party against the
1. This is an appeal filed by
order dt.13.12.2017 of the Dist. Consumer Forum-1,Hyderabad made in
C.C.No.138/2016.
convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in
2. For the sake of
the complaint.
The brief facts of the case as set out in the complaint are as follows:
3.
is resident of London and he is a share holder of the
The complainant a
The opposite party issued a Bank Draft to the
opposite party Bank.
which he received in a damaged condition. Hence the
complainant
to make payment directly to his bank
complainant requested the opposite party
account in Bombay. On the earlier occasions the opposite party used to
2
make payment directly into the complainant's NRE account at Mumbai. As
the complainant received the physical instrument in a spoiled condition at
London, he requested the opposite party bank to credit the amount directly to his account maintained at Mumbai Branch. Though the complainant made several requests, the opposite party bank failed to credit the amount to his account at Bombay and unreasonably and negligently delayed for 3 years and ultimately paid on 5.7.2014. If the amount has been paid directly to the complainant's account he would have earned interest @ 9%. The complainant submits that the Bank would have earned interest on Rs.14,25,000/- @ 18% p.a. in the course of business transaction and hence he is entitled to legitimate interest of 9% p.a. which is the interest on fixed deposits. Hence thecomplaint.
4. Opposite party filed written version contending that the complainant will not come under the definition of the Consumer as he is a share holder of the bank and hence the complaint itself is not maintainable. The opposite party submits that the complainant received the dividend by way of DD and kept it with him without presenting for encashment and due to his negligence it was spoiled and hence he is not entitled for any interest. Auditors of the complainant pointed out the same only after 3 years and the bank paid the dividend as claimed by him. The opposite party submits that the complaint is devoid of merits and is iable to be dismissed.
5. Before the District Forum, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A6 are marked on his behalí. The Chief Manager of the opposite party filed evidence affidavit. Exs.B1 to B5 are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite party bank to pay interest @9% p.a. on Rs.14,25,000/- from 28.6.2011 to 7.7.2014 to the complainant along with Rs.25,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the above said order, the appellant/opposite party preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
The District Consumer Forum-1, Hyderabad erred in drawing incorrect iníerence that the subject transaction was 'Service' and that the complaint was maintainable. The respondent/complainant was a shareholder of the appellant/opposite party and the subject transaction was a commercial one.
3
Unclaimed dividend is transferred to the dividend
account/fund and the Forum erred in holding that the
dividend amount would be utilized by the
appellant/opposite party.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.
7.
8. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be confirmed, set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner? To what relief?
9 The respondent/complainant is a shareholder of the appellant/ opposite party bank and the complaint was filed for the delayed payment of dividend.
Since the respondent/complainant was residing in London, the appellant/opposite party issued a D.D. for a sum of Rs.14,25,000/- being the dividend for the year 2010-2011 for the shares held by him. The DD was received by him but it was not encashed as it was sent in the Rupee Mode. It is also the respondent/ complainant's contention that prior to the disputed transaction, the appellant/opposite party was crediting the dividend to his NRE account maintained with Indus Ind Bank, Mumbai.
The issue that requires to be addressed is whether the said transaction can be termed as a Consumer Complaint and the service rendered by the appellant/opposite party as deficient.
10. We have perused the material on record and the fact that the appeal made by the respondent/complainant is to rectify the injustice of depriving the share holder of his dividend is not in dispute. Ex.Al clearly shows that he addressed letters to appellant/opposite party bank for the delay in payment of dividend. The point that has been overlooked in the impugned order is that Ex.A2 the DD for Rs.14,25,000/- was despatched to the respondent/complainant's London address since his account number at Indus Ind Bank, Mumbai was changed. .B1 is the original DD dated 28.7.2011 which is in good condition and not soiled as claimed by the respondent/complainant. The DD was valid upto 27.1.2012. However, the respondent/complainant addressed letters to the appellant/ opposite party bank only on 26.8.2013 vide Ex.B2 and vide Ex.B3 dt. 19.9.2013. In these letters he has clearly adverted to the fact that Indus Ind Bank has changed his account number. Copies of these letters have also been sent to Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad. The appellant/opposite party has replied vide Ex.B4 dated 24.9.2013 requesting the respondent/complainant to A return the original dividend warrant for revalidation. They have also clearly stated the following: 'An carly receipt of the said original dividend warrant to cnable us to process your request at an carliest.
11. The fact that the NRE account number of the respondent/complainant was changed was never intimated to the appellant/opposite party bank and when they directed him to return the instrument, he failed to comply. This is further supported by Ex.B5 dt.5.7.2014. The respondent/complainant has confirmed that the said dividend warrant is still with him and unless the original is returned the appellant/opposite party bank cannot do the needful.
12 The Forum disregarded the
change in the respondent/complainant's
account number with Indus Ind Bank
totally. The old account number as per
Ex.A5 is 0001-704648-102 but the new number is given as 100000247893
and whether the
respondent/complainant intimated this to the appellant/opposite party bank is not supported by any documentary evidence
13. There is scuttle distinction in between the services that are rendered a by a bank to its customers. Ordinary services that are rendered to its customers by the bankers is regular business. But in a case where the banker is a person or authority in whom the amounts were invested by way of stocks that bank stands different footing from the bank that is on a rendering ordinary services to its customers. That distinction has to be drawn in the case where the complainant has admittedly bought substantial shares from the opposite party banker and the opposite party banker was disbursing its dividends to its investors. Both the services, one of the ordinary banker and the other of an investor and investment cannot be put on the same pedestal.
14. This complaint comes under the 'Companies Act' and penalty cannot be imposed by the Consumer Fora for deficiency in service. It is also held in HUDA vS. Sunita, (2005) 2 SCC 479 Supreme Court, that statutory obligations under relevant rules cannot be treated as acts of omissions constituting deficiency in service. It is clear that the power vested under Sec.127 of the Companies Act cannot be invoked in a complaint filed for alleged deficiency in service before a District Consumer Court. The following extract is produced below:
Punishment for failure to distribute dividend xxxx However, no offense under this Section shall be deemed to have been committed -
a. Where the dividend could not be paid by reason of the operation of any law;5
b. Where a shareholder has given directions to the company regarding the payment of dividend and those directions cannot be complied with and the same has been communicated to him;
C. Xxxxx d. Xxxxx e. Where, for any other reason , the failure to pay the dividend or to post the warrant within the period under this Section was not due to any default on the part of the company.
15. In Steel City Ltd. vs. G.P. Ramesh 1(2014) CPJ 576 NC, National Commission held that trading in shares is a purely commercial activity and only motive is to earn profits. Shareholders are not Consumers as defined under Sec.2(1)(d)i) of the Act and thus the complaint is not maintainable. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of the District Porum is not maintainable and is liable to be set aside.
16. In the result, Appeal is allowed. Order of the District Forum is set aside