ORAL
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2022
(Against the judgment/order dated 10-10-2022 in Complaint Case No.19/2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh)
Canara Bank
Main Branch, Aprasa Complex
Railway Road, Aligarh.
Through its Branch Manager
... Appellant
V/s
- Purshottam Das Verma
S/o Jay Naraiyan Verma
R/o SC 63, Shastri Nagar
Ghaziabad
- Nagar Ayukt, Nagar Nigam
Aligarh
...Respondents
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER
For the Appellant : Sri Abhai Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Sri Purshottam Das Verma in person.
Dated : 23-05-2023
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal has been filed by Canara Bank under Section-41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the judgment and order dated 10-10-2022 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 19/2018, Purshottam Das Verma V/s Nagar Ayukt and another.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was posted as Junior Engineer in Palika Centralized Engineering Services as a permanent employee and was entitled to get all the benefits. He was relieved from the post on 23-02-1984 to join the post of Assistant Engineer in Awas Nigam Lucknow having lien on the previous post.
:2:
The complainant had the PF amount Rs.3,400/- on 23-02-1984 in Nagar Palika Aligarh which is now Nagar Nigam, Aligarh Opposite Party No.01of complaint and this amount was to be paid after his retirement from the service. The opposite party No.01 i.e the Nagar Nigam, Aligarh had deposited the said amount on 24-02-1984 in KDR (Kamdhenu Deposit Receipt) in the bank opposite party No.02 Canara Bank for six years and six months till 24-08-1990. The KDR was renewed till 04-01-1993 and thereafter till 04-01-1996 on 24-11-1995 but the KDR was not renewed and thereby caused loss of the interest payable at the rate of 13% per annum.
The complainant being aggrieved with the acts of the opposite parties filed the complaint before the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh and has prayed the following relief:-
- The KDR No. 4150/95 dated 24-11-1995 be paid with the interest at the rate of 13% per annum since its renewal dated 04-01-1996.
- The opposite party Bank be directed to pay compensation Rs.20,000/- for harassment.
- The opposite party Nagar Nigam be directed to pay compensation Rs.20,000/- for harassment.
The learned District Consumer Commission has considered the said prayer made in the complaint and has passed the impugned order dated 10-10-2022 which reads as follows:-
“(A) Op No.2 shall pays to the complainant the amount accumulated on 24-01-1996 in the KDR invested by OP No.01 with interest @ 13% per annum from 25-01-1996 till the date of actual payment.
- Each OP shall pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.”
Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the opposite party No.02 Canara Bank has come up in appeal.
Heard Sri Abhai Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri Purshottam Das Verma, respondent/complainant who is present in person and perused record.
:3:
The appeal has been filed with delay condonation application. Appellant has shown sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeal. Cause shown for delay is explained, therefore, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
The learned District Consumer Commission having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusing the material available on record and examining the claim as well as the issues involved in the complaint in detail has made the following observations.
“The first questions of consideration before us is as under:-
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in renewal of the KDR causing loss to the complainant? If so, its effect.
Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for harassment?
The provision of the Consumer Protection Act are applicable to the present case and there exists relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between the parties. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they are liable to compensate the complainant in terms of interest.
The admittedly, complainant was in the service of opposite party No.01 and the amount of his PF Rs.3,400/- was under the control of opposite party No.01 on 23-02-1984 and the opposite party No.01 was under obligation to pay the said amount with interest to the complainant on his retirement on 30-01-2011. The opposite party No.01 had deposited the said amount in KDR in the bank opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 was under obligation for renewal of the KDR on the maturity dates and the opposite party No.02 was also under obligation to renew it on the date of maturity or to inform the opposite party No.01 or complainant to take steps for renewal of KDR on due date. Both the opposite parties have failed to discharge their obligations and they are liable to compensate the complainant in terms of interest.
:4:
In view of finding on question no.1 complainant is entitled for payment of the increased amount Rs.3,400/- on 04-01-1996 with interest @ 13% per annum till the date of actual payment.
The second question of consideration before us is as under:-
Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation for harassment?
Complainant has suffered physical and mental suffering and therefore he is entitled for compensation for harassment. Each party is liable to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment to the complainant.”
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the respondent/complainant, who is present in person and after going through the material and evidence available on record and after perusing the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission and specially the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is correct, as such need no interference and as such is liable to be upheld with the modification that the rate of interest should be reduced from 13% to 10% per annum as well as the compensation awarded should be reduced from Rs.20.000/- to Rs.10,000/-. To that extent the order of the District Consumer Commission, Unnao is modified/amended accordingly.
ORDER
Accordingly the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh is modified to that extent that the rate of interest is reduced from 13% to 10% per annum as well as the compensation awarded by District Consumer Commission, Aligarh is reduced from Rs.20.000/- to Rs.10,000/-. Rest part of the order passed by the District Consumer Commission will remain unchaged. The appellant is directed to comply with the order within a period of six weeks from today.
:5:
Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellant under Section-15/41 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986/2019 in this appeal shall be remitted to the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh alongwith interest accrued if any, who shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) ( VIKAS SAXENA )
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Pnt.
