Summary
The appellant and his father held a joint fixed deposit of Rs 75 lakhs with HDFC Bank. The appellant alleged that, despite joint instructions to renew it, the bank credited the Rs 77 lakh maturity proceeds to his father's account alone. The State Commission declined his consumer complaint as a father-son dispute for a civil court. His appeal to the NCDRC was dismissed as withdrawn, and his review was rejected, although he swore that he had never instructed his counsel to withdraw. The Court held that a person availing a bank's services is a consumer, and the complaint alleged deficiency of service against the bank, not a claim against his father. The State Commission erred in refusing to decide it. Given his affidavit, the NCDRC should have entertained the review. The NCDRC's orders were set aside and the appeal restored for decision on merits within four months.
Issues
- Whether a consumer complaint alleging that a bank wrongly credited the proceeds of a joint fixed deposit to one holder's account, contrary to joint instructions, is maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, or is a private dispute for a civil court.
- Whether the NCDRC should have entertained the review where the appellant swore that he never instructed counsel to withdraw his appeal.
Provisions considered
- Sections 2(1)(d)(ii), 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o), Consumer Protection Act, 1986Banking is a service, so a joint holder availing a bank's fixed deposit service is a consumer. An allegation that the bank paid out a joint deposit on one holder's instructions, contrary to its terms, is a complaint of deficiency of service. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20)
Held
- Service under Section 2(1)(o) covers service of any description, expressly including banking, and deficiency under Section 2(1)(g) is wide. A person who avails a bank's services is a consumer entitled to the Act's remedies. (¶¶ 15, 16, 17, 18, 19)
- The complaint was that the bank was deficient in crediting a joint fixed deposit to the father alone, contrary to joint instructions. The terms required all signatories to sign for premature encashment. The appellant raised no claim against his father, and any dispute between them was not the subject of the complaint, so the State Commission erred in relegating him to a civil suit. (¶¶ 9, 13, 20)
- The appellant had stated on affidavit that he never instructed his counsel to withdraw the appeal. The NCDRC should therefore have entertained the review and heard the appeal. (¶¶ 7, 21)
Result
Appeals allowed. The NCDRC's withdrawal and review orders are set aside and the first appeal restored, to be decided on merits within four months with all contentions open; the Court held only that the complaint is maintainable.