STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 35 / 2011
Manager, UTI Bank Limited
(Now Axis Bank Limited)
having its Branch at Kanchenjunga Building
Upper Ground Floor, 18, Barakhamba Road
New Delhi and now Axis Bank Limited
Statesmen Building, 148, Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi
......Appellant / Opposite Party No. 1
Versus
1. Dr. R.C. Gupta
Reader, Department of Botany
Kumaun University Campus
Almora
2. Mrs. Shashi Gupta
C/o Dr. R.C. Gupta
52, Siree, Lala Bazar
Almora
......Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 / Complainants
3. Sh. Ravinder Kumar Agarwal
Chief Representative, UTI
Ashoka Hotel Building
Lala Bazar, Almora
......Respondent No. 3 / Opposite Party No. 2
Sh. S.M. Joshi, Learned Counsel for the Appellant
None for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Sh. Pradeep Bartwal, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 22/08/2013
ORDER
(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):
This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 against the order dated 18.12.2010 passed by the District
2
Forum, Almora in consumer complaint No. 66 of 2001, whereby the
District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the
opposite party No. 1 – appellant before this Commission to pay sum
of Rs. 12,600/- to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – complainants
together with interest @15% p.a. from 28.09.1998 till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the
consumer complaint, are that the complainants applied for shares of
UTI Bank Limited and submitted the demand drafts of the required
amount to UTI Bank Limited through respondent No. 3 – Sh.
Ravinder Kumar Agarwal, but the complainants did not receive the
share certificates. On inquiry, it was found that the demand drafts
sent by the complainants were attached with some other application
form. The complainants had written the serial number of their
application and their names on the overleaf of the bank drafts, so that
the same could not be misused. Alleging deficiency in service on the
part of the opposite parties, the complainants filed a consumer
complaint before the District Forum, Almora.
3. The appellant filed written statement before the District Forum
and pleaded that the complainants wrongly submitted their application
through respondent No. 3 – Sh. Ravinder Kumar Agarwal and there
was no such procedure mentioned in the offer document; that Sh.
Ravinder Kumar Agarwal was not their authorised agent; that there
has been neglect on the part of the complainants; that the application
form was not properly submitted and that there is no deficiency in
service on their part.
4. The respondent No. 3 filed written statement before the District
Forum and pleaded that the consideration amount of the shares was
3
received by UTI Bank Limited and that there has not been any
deficiency in service on his part.
5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on
record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated
18.12.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant has filed this appeal.
6. None appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. We have
heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 3 and
have also perused the record.
7. The main ground taken by the appellant is that Sh. Ravinder
Kumar Agarwal was not their authorised agent and that the
complainants should not have handed over their application to him. It
is an admitted fact that the application forms and the demand drafts of
the required amount were received by the appellant and the same were
encashed by the appellant. The appellant has also admitted that
overleaf the demand drafts, the application number and the name of
the applicants were also mentioned. If Sh. Ravinder Kumar Agarwal
was not the authorised agent of the appellant, then why the application
forms were accepted and the amount of the demand drafts was
realized by the appellant. The District Forum has rightly held that if
Sh. Ravinder Kumar Agarwal was not the agent of the bank, then the
applications forms forwarded through him, should not have been
accepted and the consideration amount of the shares should not have
been realized by the bank by encashing the demand drafts. We also
endorse the said view of the District Forum.
8. So far as the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum,
Almora in the matter is concerned, the District Forum has rightly held
4
that the part of cause of action has arisen in favour of the
complainants at Almora and, as such, the consumer complaint was
maintainable before the District Forum, Almora.
9. It was also argued that the complainants do not fall under the
category of “consumer”. We do not find any force in the said
submission raised on behalf of the appellant, for the reason that the
complainants have paid the amount for purchase of shares, which
were not allotted to them and nor the amount was refunded. Thus, the
complainants fall under the category of “consumer” and their
consumer complaint was maintainable.
10. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter
and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any
interference, except on the count that the rate of interest awarded by
the District Forum @15% p.a. is on the higher side. In our considered
opinion, the same need to be reduced to 7% p.a. This way, the appeal
is to be partly allowed and the order impugned is to be modified
accordingly.
11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is partly allowed. Order
impugned dated 18.12.2010 of the District Forum is modified to the
extent that the rate of interest is reduced from 15% p.a. to 7% p.a.
Rest of the impugned order passed by the District Forum is confirmed.
No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL)
K
