Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency of service by bank – Allegation of – Appellant and his father, opened a joint Fixed Deposit – The essence of the complaint of the appellant was that there was a deficiency on the part of the respondent bank in proceeding to credit the proceeds of a joint FD exclusively to the account of his father – The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (SCDRC), declined to entertain the complaint on the ground that the dispute essentially was between the appellant and his father and did not fulfill the description of a consumer dispute – SCDRC was of the view that only a civil court was competent to deal with such a dispute – Appeal was dismissed by the NCDRC – On appeal, held: A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act – As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act – There was a manifest error on the part of the SCDRC in declining to entertain the consumer complaint on merits – The SCDRC had no justification to relegate the appellant to pursue his claim before a civil court – The appellant did not, in the proceedings before the SCDRC, raise any claim against his father – Therefore, the SCDRC was wrong deducing that there was dispute between appellant and his father – The order of the NCDRC is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. The present case arises under the 1986 Act, which was enacted to protect the welfare and interest of consumers. The respondent bank does not dispute that the appellant, along with his father, opened a joint FD with the bank. A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. There was a manifest error on the part of the SCDRC in declining to entertain the consumer complaint on merits. Whether the appellant is able to establish his case is a matter which has to be decided within the parameters of law as it emerges from the provisions of the 1986 Act. The essence of the complaint of the appellant is that there was a deficiency on the part of the respondent bank in proceeding to credit the proceeds of a joint FD exclusively to the account of his father. The SCDRC ought to have determined whether the complaint related to deficiency of service as defined under the 1986 Act. The SCDRC had no justification to relegate the appellant to pursue his claim before a civil court. The appellant did not, in the proceedings before the SCDRC, raise any claim against his father. Therefore, the SCDRC was wrong deducing that there was dispute between appellant and his father. Assuming that there was a dispute between the appellant and his father, that was not the subject matter of the consumer complaint. The complaint that there was a deficiency of service was against the bank. [Paras 14, 19 & 20][97-B-C; 99-CG] Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde (2010) 7 SCC 489 : [2010] 8 SCR 358; Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited v. Ajay Kumar Agarwal (2022) 6 SCC 496 : 2022 (3 ) JT 95 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.