RAM PIARI KAPOOR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ( in short, 'the State Commission') in complaint case no. C-2/99. By the impugned order the State Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant appellant Smt. Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust against Punjab National Bank, seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Aggrieved by the said order complainant has preferred the present appeal

(2.) Briefly stated the facts which led to the filing of the complaint are that Late Sh.R.D.Kapoor had created a Trust in the name of his wife Late Ram Piari Kapoor, namely, Ram Piari Kapoor Charitable Trust, vide a Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990 and it started running a charitable homeopathic dispensary since 16.12.1997 at A-176 Jhilmil Colony, Delhi, in accordance with the provisions of the said Trust Deed. R.D.Kapoor, author of the Trust died sometime in 1993 and after his death, Board of Trustees in a meeting held on 05.01.1995 unanimously appointed Brig. J.M.Kapoor (Retd.) as the Chairman / President in accordance with Clause 3 (X) of the Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990. Brig. J.M.Kapoor opened a Bank account in the name of the above-named Trust with the Opposite party-Bank Punjab National Bank, F-19, Preet Vihar Branch, bearing account no. 23469 by signing the account opening form and supplying the requisite documents like Trust Deed dated 02.04.1990, copy of the resolution dated 05.01.1995 appointing him as the Chairman / President and the relevant rules of the Trust. In terms of clause 3, sub-clause (iv) of the Trust Deed, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees was entitled to maintain, operate and close the bank account and do other acts relating to the financial management of the Trust. After opening of the said account, Brig. J.M.Kapoor had deposited a sum of Rs.20 lakh in the said bank account bearing no.23469 out of his personal account and continued to operate the said account in accordance with the above clause and the mandate given by him to the bank. It is alleged that on 06.02.1998, two other Trustees, namely, M.L.Kapoor and Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor gave a letter to the opposite party bank stating therein that the mode of operation of the Trust account had been changed. On the same day, Brig. J.M.Kapoor also delivered a letter to the opposite party bank intimating thereby that Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor had been removed from the Board of Trustees by the Chairman. It was alleged that the opposite party bank taking cognizance of the letter of Wg. Cdr. Rajpal Kapoor, even though it was not accompanied by any copy of the resolution and without considering the provisions of the Trust Deed, illegally froze the account no. 23469 in the name of the Trust and did not allow Brig. J.M.Kapoor to operate the said account and instead asked him to obtain Court order for de-freezing the account. Hence alleging negligence, carelessness and deficiency in service on the part of the bank, complaint was filed on behalf of the said Trust through Brig. J.M.Kapoor for a direction on the opposite party bank to de-freeze the said bank account no.23469 and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for paralyzing the functioning of the Trust and for mental harassment and hardship suffered by him alongwith cost of litigation.

(3.) Complaint was resisted by the bank not disputing the factum about the opening of the bank account by Brig. J.M. Kapoor in the name of the Trust and the said account having been subsequently frozen on receipt of communication dated 06.02.98 from M.L.Kapoor and Wg.Cdr.Rajpal Kapoor. However, any deficiency in service, lack of carelessness, etc., were denied on the part of the opposite party bank. It was sought to be explained that since there were contradictory claims regarding the functioning of the Trust and none of the parties filed any resolution of the Board of Trustees, the complainant and other parties were asked to settle their dispute themselves or through the instrumentality of the Court or to bring a Court order so that operation of the bank account of the Trust could be allowed by the rightful / authorized person (s). The State Commission, considering the respective pleas, dismissed the complaint primarily on the ground that the dispute between the Chairman of the complainant Trust on one side and the other two Trustees on other side could better be resolved by a civil court only and it was not a consumer dispute which could form subject matter of a consumer complaint before a consumer form. The State Commission gave the following reasons for dismissing the complaint and making the impugned order: