w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Amit Sen Gupta & Others v/s United Bank of India, W.B. & Another

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U40100MH2005PTC154038

Company & Directors' Information:- M R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1992PTC051324

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U51311DL1996PTC077255

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U52110DL1974PTC007339

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U93000MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- J B UNITED PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999MH2014PTC258844

Company & Directors' Information:- B C SEN & COMPANY LTD [Active] CIN = U27205WB1986PLC041069

Company & Directors' Information:- GUPTA AND GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U55204DL1954PTC002390

Company & Directors' Information:- S K GUPTA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U26900MH1973PTC016294

Company & Directors' Information:- R. K. GUPTA AND COMPANY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1993PTC052138

Company & Directors' Information:- B R GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63013DL2000PTC107343

Company & Directors' Information:- T N GUPTA PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U02005WB1951PTC020141

Company & Directors' Information:- AMIT AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74899DL1981PTC011918

Company & Directors' Information:- C K SEN AND CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1913PTC002317

Company & Directors' Information:- A V GUPTA AND COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Converted to LLP] CIN = U24239DL1999PTC102248

Company & Directors' Information:- SEN & SEN PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U51909WB1949PTC017898

Company & Directors' Information:- G K SEN & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U63012WB1956PTC023050

Company & Directors' Information:- Y P GUPTA AND COMPANY PVT LTD [Under Process of Striking Off] CIN = U74899DL1983PTC016661

Company & Directors' Information:- J S GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U20211UP1975PTC004078

Company & Directors' Information:- M K GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U74999DL1979PTC009517

Company & Directors' Information:- A J GUPTA AND CO PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74210UP1980PTC004986

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED BANK LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U93090TN1937PLC003162

Company & Directors' Information:- A K SEN & CO PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U74140WB1940PTC009964

Company & Directors' Information:- D. R. GUPTA & COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U74899DL1944PTC000794

Company & Directors' Information:- B C SEN PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51109WB1947PTC015279

Company & Directors' Information:- M N SEN & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U24139WB1974PTC029748

Company & Directors' Information:- S P GUPTA AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U26932RJ1972PTC001459

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED CORPORATION LIMITED [Liquidated] CIN = U99999TN1942PLC003159

Company & Directors' Information:- B SEN & CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U51909WB1946PTC014096

Company & Directors' Information:- UNITED INDIA BANK LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U65191KL1947PLC001273

Company & Directors' Information:- H C SEN AND CO PVT LTD [Strike Off] CIN = U99999DL1951PTC001993

    Revision Petition No. 1888 of 2014

    Decided On, 09 December 2020

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC


    For the Petitioners: Anubha Aggarwal (Amicus Curiae). For the Respondents: Rajesh Kumar, Advocate.

Judgment Text

The present revision petition has been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2014 in appeal No. FA/342/2013 filed by the petitioner/complainant (hereinafter referred as complainant), whereby his appeal was dismissed.2. The complainant had filed complaint before the District Forum which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2013. In the present revision petition, Ld. Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the petitioner/complainant, contends that for the deficiency in services, several letters had been written by the complainants and those communications had been admitted by the respondent and the respondent had also given assurances to the complainant to consider the said services. It is submitted that since there is a clear-cut admission on the part of the opposite party, the impugned order is perverse and illegal and is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the respondent, however, submits that the deficiency which the complainant asserts does not fall within the definition of ‘deficiency’ under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and since there was no consumer dispute, the complaint was rightly dismissed by Foras below. It is submitted that there is no error in the impugned order and the present revision petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.3. Heard the arguments. Perused the file and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of Ld. Counsels.4. The admitted facts are that the complainant was maintaining a saving bank account, fixed term deposit and locker facility with the respondent since long. The gist of the averments made by the complainant in his complaint wherein he alleges deficiency in service on behalf of the respondent, includes him, facing trouble in getting the pass book updated since he had to stand in long queues and was also finding it difficult to climb the stair-cases to go to the bank and he also claims that the varandah of the bank was unsafe. He has contended that there had been an unjustified remission of locker rent for the unsafe locker and an unsolicited deduction of Rs.17/- towards medical insurance and also liquidation of fixed deposit without accrual of the interest thereon for 27 days. In the complaint, he has sought the directions that the respondent should ensure cent percent security of assets kept in the locker by the account holder and 24 hours direct vigilance should be maintained and to further remain stick to the terms of the agreement executed between the complainant and the bank in respect of the locker and also pay interest on fixed deposit No. 217359 which the bank authorities delayed for 27 days after maturity. The respondent should also be directed to repair all old structures like verandah and locker etc. and to arrange at least two counters for payment and two counters to take money from the account-holders and should also stop deductions like mediclaim etc. and should also return the deducted amount of Rs.17/-. Moreover, he sought directions that the Respondent be directed to arrange the shifting of the unmanned server room to upper floor and that the senior citizen should not be made to stand in long queues for transaction and lastly claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.5. The State Commission after hearing the argument and perusing the record held as under:-“Having heard the argument advanced by both sides and perusing the documents on record it appears that the Appellants are consumers under the Bank. The Appellants have alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank for keeping them in long queue to get their passbook updated, compelling them to climb a steep staircase, not taking proper steps to ensure 100% security to the customers of the Bank in respect of their life and assets since the balcony of the Bank building is not in habitable condition, not arranging proper security for locker room and the Appellants have prayed for hefty amount of compensation. But in respect of the above-mentioned issues no cause of action took place. Further, the Appellants have alleged unsolicited deduction of Rs. 17/- by the Bank towards medical insurance and deduction of excessive amount towards locker rent in violation of the agreed terms by the parties. But the Appellants have failed to prove the allegation by adducing documentary evidence.In that view of the matter we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order and there is no need to interfere with the same.In the result, the appeal fails.”6. The main contention which has been raised by the counsel for the Respondent is that there is no consumer dispute in this matter and, therefore, the complaint was rightly dismissed.7. The expression ‘complaint’ has been defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as under:-“2(c) “complaint” means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that—3[(i) an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by [any trader or service provider];](ii) [the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him] suffer from one or more defects;(iii) [the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him] suffer from deficiency in any respect;[(iv) a trader or the service provider, as the case may be, has charged for the goods or for the services mentioned in the complaint, a price in excess of the price—(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being in force;(b) displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods;(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the time being in force;(d) agreed between the parties;(v) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used are being offered for sale to the public,—(a) in contravention of any standards relating to safety of such goods as required to be complied with, by or under any law for the time being in force;(b) if the trader could have known with due diligence that the goods so offered are unsafe to the public;(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be hazardous to life and safety of the public when used, are being offered by the service provider which such person could have known with due diligence to be injurious to life and safety;] with a view to obtaining any relief provided by or under this Act;”8. The expression ‘deficiency in service’ is defined in Section 2(g) as under:-“2(g) “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service;9. From the perusal of the contents in the complaint and from the arguments of Ld. Counsel for the complainant, it is apparent that there are no allegations/contentions regarding unfair trade practices or that the services rendered were insufficient. The complainants were holding a savings bank account, fixed deposit account and the locker since long with the bank. It is apparent that he has been availing the services of the Respondent since long and no case of theft in his locker has been reported. There is no allegati

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

on that he finds it difficult to maintain his locker. As regards the deduction of Rs.17/- is concerned, there is no evidence on record to suggest that it was done unlawfully. Regarding the deduction of mediclaim, no evidence is shown that the respondent was not authorized to do it or same has been done illegally. Absolutely, there are no contentions regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the respondent. The State Commission through its impugned order has rightly dismissed the appeal. I find no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. The revision petition has no merits. The revision petition is dismissed with no orders as to costs.10. I would like to convey my thanks to Ms. Anubha Aggarwal, who on the request of the Bench, has acted as Amicus Curiae and has worked hard.