CONSUMER EDUCATION And RESEARCH SOCIETY, AHMEDABAD vs Canara Bank

THE facts leading to the filing of this Appeal by the Consumer Education & Research Society, Ahmedabad (for short "CERS ") a registered consumer Association are that the Appellant arid present Respondent No. 4, Shri Hirji Devji Dharod had field a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad. In that complaint CERS was arrayed as Complainant No. 1 and Shri Dharod, as Complainant No. 2. THE complaint was against the Canara Bank Head Office, Bangalore, Canara Bank, Madurai and Canara Bank, Divisional Office, Ahmedabad, now arrayed as Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. According to the allegations in the complaint, Shri Dharod had opened letter of Credit with Canara Bank through its Madurai branch. In the course of those credit facilities granted to Shri Dharod, the Bank had shown some negligence as a result of which Shri Dharod suffered heavy damages on various counts as stated in the complaint. In the complaint various amounts as compensation, refund, interest etc. were claimed on the ground that there was deficiency in the service rendered by the Bank.

DURING the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission, CERS filed an application on August 21, 1990 before the said Commision together with a telegram sent to them by the complainant No, 2 i.e. Shri Dharod informing them that he was withdrawing the complaint against the Canara Bank. The Commission asked the counsel for the Bank to submit papers pertaining to settlement. The Bank filed copy of the understanding arrived at between them and Shri Dharod which was in effect an agreement for the withdrawal of the complaint as the dispute between him and the Bank was finally closed. Cers contended before the State Commission that the said agreement had been arrived at between Shri Dharod and the Bank as the latter had coerced the former, and it should not be acted upon. Though the State Commission held that the memo of understanding was perhaps, arrived at between Shri Dharod and the Bank by pressuring the former but they could not enter into such controversy. In the absence of the complainant No.2 i.e. Shri Dharod the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn and not pressed. As the complaint was not dismissed on merits, no order awarding costs to Cers was passed. Being aggrieved, the Cers has filed the present appeal. The only contention of Cers in this appeal is that the Stated Commission should have awarded them cost of the-proceedings.

After hearing the learned counsel for the Appellant we are of the opinion that they were not entitled to any cost. It is true that the appellant is a voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, falls with in the definition of "complainant" as defined in Section 2(b)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1988 (for short the Act) but the actual consumer himself was figured as complainant No. 2. In the present case Shri Dharod was the consumer as on account of the alleged deficiency of service rendered by the Bank it was he who is said to have suffered damages. Vide Section 18 of the Act, Section 14 has been made applicable to the proceedings before the State Commission with such modification as necessary. Rule 14(5) of the Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, empowers the National Commission, if satisfied with the allegations contained in the complaint to direct the Opposite Party or Parties to take one or more of the things as mentioned in subsection (i) of Section 14 of the Act. The relevant portion of the Section 14(1) of the Act reads as follows: - (a) to remove the defect pointed out by the appropriate laboratory from the goods in question; (b) to replace the goods with new goods of similar description which shall be free from any defect; (c) to return to the complainant the price, or as the case may be, the charges paid by the complainant; (c) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the Opposite Party.

A voluntary registered Consumer Association, in case it is a consumer, can file an independent complaint. However, if it is prosecuting the case on behalf of some other consumer, then the Association can seek relief only for the benefit of the said consumer and not for their own behalf.

IN the present case Mr. Dharod had filed the complaint though CERS had joined him as one of the complainants. The real complainant was Mr. Dharod and he withdrew his complaint filed before the State Commission and thus there was no occasion for the disposal of the complaint on merits. IN the circumstances we are not able to see how CERS can independently claim cost from the Opposite Party. The learned Counsel for the Appellant argued that the Association could pursue the present complaint in the nature of public litigation. In the present case no public interest was involved. It was a private grievance of Shri Dharod against the Bank. Therefore, the appellant cannot contend that the present complaint was in the interest of public.

FOR the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss it. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.