1992 (9) TMI 363 - Commission - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Alleged deficiency in service by the Bank.
2. Timeliness of the complaint.
3. Relevance of the criminal case against the Bank's employees.
4. Merits of the complainant's claim for damages.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Alleged Deficiency in Service by the Bank:
The complainant, Mrs. R.D. Chinoy, alleged that the Bank sold her entire lot of shares, which were pledged as security for an overdraft, without necessity. She claimed that the outstanding balance on her overdraft account was only Rs. 14,131.57, but the Bank sold shares worth Rs. 36,000.00. She argued that the Bank acted imprudently and fraudulently, causing her a loss of over Rs. 20,000.00 as the shares could have fetched more than Rs. 60,000.00 in the open market.

2. Timeliness of the Complaint:
The State Commission noted that the complaint was filed more than ten years after the cause of action arose, which was on November 3, 1979, when the shares were sold. The complaint was filed on February 9, 1990. The Commission held that the complaint was barred by limitation, as legal action should have been initiated within three years from the date of the sale of shares. The Commission emphasized that principles of Limitation apply to complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

3. Relevance of the Criminal Case Against the Bank's Employees:
The complainant mentioned that the Metropolitan Magistrate had convicted Mr. J.K. Digaria, a Bank employee, for fraudulent actions. However, the State Commission observed that this conviction was not relevant to the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Furthermore, the Metropolitan Sessions Judge later acquitted Mr. Digaria, and the appeal against this acquittal was pending. The Commission concluded that the criminal case's outcome did not impact the complaint's validity under consumer law.

4. Merits of the Complainant's Claim for Damages:
The complainant claimed Rs. 3,20,000.00 as damages, including the current market value of the shares, bonus shares, and mental agony. The State Commission found that the complainant had authorized the Bank to sell the shares in one lot. The complainant's argument that she was misled by the Bank's employee regarding the overdraft balance was deemed an afterthought. The Commission noted that the complainant had utilized the credited amount from the sale of shares without protest and had even expressed gratitude to the Bank for its services in April 1981. The complaint against the Bank's employees was filed only after a loan to her son was refused. The Commission concluded that the complainant's case lacked merit and dismissed the appeal.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. The complainant was ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,000.00.