NATIONAL CONSUMER AWARENESS GROUP Vs. STATE BANK PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant which is a registered body under the Societies Registration Act, styled as 'national Consumer Awareness Group (Regd)', has filed this complaint through its Joint Secretary Shri S. S. Badwal u/ Sec.12 read with Sec.17 (a) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short 'the Act') against the respondents on 28.11.1991.

(2.) In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at, it is not necessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to state that the seven depositors had deposited the amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (as detailed in Annexure C-1) on 1.8.1991 with Shri Som Sabbarwal (respondent-3) who was then posted as Manager of State Bank of Patiala, Shahkot Branch for obtaining the 'fixed Deposit Receipts'. It is stated that the said amount had been collected by Shri Som Sabbarwal on behalf of respondents-1 and 2. According to the complainant, respondent-3 had issued cheques in the names of the seven 'consumers/depositors' for the amounts received by him and those cheques were signed by him. The case of the complainant is that the depositors had waited for the issuance of' Fixed Deposit Receipts' which respondent-3 had promised on 1.8.1991, but all in vain and ultimately, when they approached the concerned branch of the respondent-Bank at Shahkot for the issuance of 'fdrs' in lieu of the amounts collected by him, they came to know that the said respondent had been transferred to Patti Branch of the Bank. It is alleged that the cheques given by the depositors in Shahkot branch of the Bank had been returned to them with the remarks "refer to Drawer" or "the Funds not arranged etc. ". The grouse of the complainant is that respondent-3, while acting in the course of his duties and on behalf of respondents-1 and 2, had collected the amounts from the depositors, causing financial loss to them to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- for which they were to be compensated by the respondents with interest at the rate 12% p. a. for negligently allowing its Manager to collect the amounts on their behalf.

(3.) On notices being issued, respondents-1 and 2 have stoutly controverted the allegations of the complainant and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not at all maintainable for the reasons that the alleged depositors do not fall within the definition of 'consumer' under the Act and therefore, the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and that the complaint is prima facie false, frivolous and vexatious and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs. On merits, it is denied that respondent-3 was authorised by the answering-respondents to act on their behalf or approach the alleged depositors for collecting the money under the head 'fixed Deposits'. It is stated that as per Bank rules, the officer designated issues the 'fixed Deposit Receipts' against the money deposited by the depositors with the Bank through the Cashier and the 'fdrs' are also signed by the Bank official designated/authorised for the purpose. It is stated that if any person is desirous of opening 'fixed Deposit Account' with any branch of the answering-respondent-Bank, the person is required to come to the Bank and deposit the amount by filling the 'pay-in-Slip' and 'account Opening Form' and thereafter the depositor is issued a certificate which clearly mentions the amount deposited, the date of maturity and the rate of interest etc. In the present case, no such formalities had been completed by the alleged depositors which evidently shows that the alleged amounts were never deposited as 'fixed Deposits' with respondent-3 or he ever collected the amount on behalf or under the authority of the answering-respondent. Respondents-1 and 2 have, however, admitted the fact that the alleged depositors had presented the cheques which were returned with the objections "refer to drawer" and it was denied by them that the alleged depositors ever approached them for the issuance of the 'fdrs'.