AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Shreesha, J
Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act") is to the order dated 26.08.2016 in First Appeal No. 268 of 2014 against CC No.683 of 2013, passed by the Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short "the State Commission"). By the impugned order, the State Commission has concurred with the finding of deficiency of service on behalf of the Opposite Parties and enhanced the compensation awarded by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderabad (for short "the District Forum").
The facts in brief are that the Complainant is a customer and account holder of State Bank of Hyderabad - NRI Branch bearing Account No. 62121509394 since January 2010 and she has made certain deposits in FDRs and the first Opposite Party did not furnish the certificates to her despite the fact that she had approached the Bank three times. It was averred that the Complainant approached the second Opposite Party and she was asked to show her PAN card though it was not necessary to collect the deposit certificates and therefore gave TDS forms not the original savings certificate. On perusal, she found that the Bank had deducted 10% tax from her account though she had submitted form 15H declaring that she had no income. It was stated that she was deliberately denied her original deposit certificates. The Complainant dropped the TDS papers on the desk of the first Opposite Party and thereafter the first Opposite Party threatened to get her arrested. Immediately she had dropped the Complaint in the Complaint box and made the same to the third Opposite Party. When the third Opposite Party was contacted she was once again informed that she had to collect the deducted income tax amount from the Income Tax Department. It was averred that keeping the original deposit certificates with the Opposite Parties deliberately for several months amounts to deficiency in service. It was further stated that the deposited amount was not updated every time there was increase in the interest rate inspite of her having visited the Bank regularly. The Complainant had received Canadian dollars of 1100 in September 2013 and this amount was not converted into Indian Rupees on account of which the value went down and the Complainant suffered loss of Rs.50,000/-. The Complainant approached the District Forum seeking the following reliefs:
"1) The Opposite Parties be made to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation
2) the Opposite parties reimburse the wrongfully deducted income tax amount of Rs.90,000/- at the rate of 20% interest, a total amount of Rs.1,08,000/-.
3) the Opposite parties pay the legal and miscellaneous expenses of Rs.35,000/-
4) the Opposite parties reimburse the amount she lost - Rs.1,50,000/-
5) the Opposite parties reimburse the amount Rs.90,000/- she lost due to deliberate failure to deposit the Canadian dollars to her account, during which the value of the dollar fell.
Thus, the complainant humbly prays that, the interest of justice and good conscience, the total amount of Rs.4,83,000/- be deposited to her SBH NRI branch account number. "
The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 filed their Written Version which was adopted by Opposite Parties no.3 and 4. It was admitted that the Complainant held subject Savings Bank Account and that the said amounts were deposited in her Account. It was averred that the Complainant had failed to submit form 15G or 15H as required every year in the month of April and May to get tax exemption from tax deduction. It was denied that any discrimination was shown against the Complainant. It was averred that the Complainant visited their bank on 23.05.2013 for conversion of FDR for higher rate of interest and at that point of time TDS was deducted and TDS forms were given to the Complainant. On verification of the said papers, she has thrown away her TDS papers on desk and shouted in a loud voice at Opposite Parties despite the assurance given by the Opposite Parties that they would verify records regarding deduction of income tax. While so, on 20.09.2013 a request was made to the Complainant to give her consent for converting the inward remittance of CAD 10354 and also requested through another letter dated 1.10.2013 sent through RPAD, the Complainant did not respond. Hence, the Opposite Party converted CAD to Indian Rupees on 07.10.2013 and credited the same to her Account and therefore no deficiency of service on their part.
The District forum based on the evidence adduced allowed the Complaint directing the first Opposite Party to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-. The District Forum while observing thus, held as follows:
"Ex. A1 to A8 marked on behalf of the Complainant. Ex. A8 is the Xerox copy of the FDR issued by the opposite party in the name of the Complainant as per Ex. A8 the date of deposit of the amount was on 23-5-2013 and the said FDR was returned to the Complainant under an acknowledgment Ex. A1 dt. 24-8-2013 there was delay of 3 months, as per the law the opposite party ought to have returned the FDRs immediately on the date of deposit but the opposite party did not return the same. As per the pleadings it is clear that the Complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to return the FDRs but they failed to return the FDRs immediately, but long after 3 months under the acknowledgment of Ex. A1 returned the FDRs on 24-8-2013. Therefore it was deficiency of service on the part of the employees of the opposite parties. Therefore the Complainant mentally and physically suffered and she approached number of times. Therefore we feel it is just and reasonable to direct the opposite party No. 1 to 4 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards costs."
Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission which enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-.
Dissatisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Bank has preferred this Revision Petition.
A suggestion was made from the Bench that since the Bank did not challenge the order of the District Forum with respect to the finding of deficiency of service before the State Commission and the same has attained finality, if the matter could be amicably settled as the only point which falls for consideration is whether the State Commission is justified in enhancing compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Counsel sought time. On 04.02.2019, the matter was adjourned to 07.02.2019. On instructions, learned Counsel submitted that he had no instructions to settle the matter and hence the Revision Petition was heard on merits by the Bench.
The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently argued that there was no deficiency of service on their behalf and drew our attention to the observations made by the State Commission in paras No. 21, 22 and 23. For better understanding of his submissions, the same is being reproduced as hereunder:
"21) It is clear from the above citizens charter that it is not mandatory to furnish the Form-15G in case the interest on deposits in a financial year does not exceed Rs.5,000/-. Admittedly, in the instant case, the Respondents appear to have demanded the Appellant for furnishing form 15G or 15H at the time of deposit, which is not warranted. From the averments of the complaint as well as written version of the parties, it is clear that something went wrong at the bank on the particular day and to evidence the same, the Respondents bank had an opportunity to place on record the safety tapes, which they failed to. In spite of repeated requests made by the Appellant, the same were not heeded to by the Respondents which impliedly speaks volumes as to the commissions and/or omissions on their part. It is also the case of the Appellant that she dropped a complaint in the complaint-box as well as mailed to the authorities, which is not denied by the Respondents. Even the Respondents failed to produce this piece of evidence to show their bonafides. Moreover, in the arguments, the Appellant stated that she hails from one of the North-Eastern State of India and that she belongs to minority community. Therefore, it appears that the Respondents have a motive and intention to harass her for the reasons best known to them.
22) Coming to the aspect of arraying the Respondents in their individual capacity but not in official capacity, it is to be stated that this was not agitated by them before the forum below by way of any application and more so, after passing of the orders either by way of preferring an appeal. Admittedly, the Respondents stated to have complied with the orders of forum below, which is nothing but submission with the orders of forum below in tone and tenor and now they are estopped from taking such specious pleas. Even otherwise, we agree with the argument put-forth by the Appellant that consumer fora must eschew technicalities as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in FA No.478 of 2005, decided on 31.03.2010 in the matter of S.P.Aggarwal Vs. The Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the Appellant that she was harassed and humiliated at the bank premises which compelled her to knock the doors of the forum below. It is not explained as to why the Respondents have not delivered the term deposit certificates on the very day of deposit. The very addressing of two letters to the Appellant itself goes to show that to cover-up the laches on their part, the Respondents resorted to such practice.
23) The present appeal is filed seeking similar reliefs as sought in the complaint, with improved version, which by any stretch of imagination cannot be considered in this appeal. However, in our view, the compensation awarded by the forum below would not meet the ends of justice in view of the fact that the Appellant is none other than a student pursuing her further education after completing "doctorate" and hails from a decent family and her father is stated to be an IAS Officer. Having regard to her stature and social status, any amount of compensation would not suffice. However, it is imperative to award a reasonable compensation as claimed by the Appellant, which we deem it fit to enhance the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-."
We are of the considered view that the only point which falls for consideration is whether the State Commission was right in enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. As the finding given by the District Forum that the FDR dated 23.05.2013, was given to the Complainant under acknowledgement (Ex.A1) is dated 24.08.2013 and there was delay of 3 months, was not challenged by the Bank and this finding has attained finality and therefore the Bank is deficient in its service as far as this aspect is concerned. The State Commission has addressed itself to the communication between the Complainant and the Bank and has given a finding that the Complainant was indeed harassed by the Bank by not supplying the term Deposit Receipt on the very first day of deposit. As far as the concurrent finding of both the fora below with respect to three months delay in handing over of the FDR is concerned, we are of the considered view, that there is deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank and therefore the additional Rs.90,000/-, awarded by the State Commission towards compensation cannot be construed to be excessive. Be that as it may, the observations made by the State commission with respect to the Complainant hailing from North Eastern State and the insinuation causing any harassment on this ground is expunged. Further observation made by the State Commission in enhancing the compensation on the ground of 'social status' is also set aside but at the same time, we agree with the amount which was quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. With these observations this Revision Petition is dismissed and the aforenoted observations of the State Commission are being expunged from the impugned order. Vide letter dated 11.11.2016 the operation of the impugned order was stayed subject to the Bank depositing 50% of the awarded amount. This amount shall stand released to the Complainant with interest accrued and needless to add, the same shall stand adjusted from the decretal amount.
I.A.No.12924 of 2017 filed by the Petitioner seeking amendment of the cause title on the ground that the State Bank of Hyderabad has been merged with State Bank of India is allowed and execution of the order shall be by the State Bank of India.