CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs SHRI BHARAT GUPTA

CENTRAL Bank of India challenges in this appeal, order of the District Forum, Patiala dated September 20,1995 whereby the appellant was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lumpsum towards compensation and costs to the complainant Bharat Gupta.

UNIT Trust of India floated a scheme known as ''Master Gain - 1992'' Applications were invited for sale of share units of Rs. 10/- each through Central Bank of India. The complainant applied for 5000 shares of UNITs on (sic.) and submitted his application to the Central Bank of India, Adalat Bazar, Patiala-opposite party No. 2 along with a cheque for Rs. 50,000/- drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, The Mall, Patiala in favour of U.T.I. The Central Bank of India returned the application along with the memo of Punjab and Sind Bank, The Mall, Patiala dis-honouring the cheque. The complainant thus suffered loss on account of negligence of the Central Bank of India in wrongly sending the cheque for collection to Punjab and Sind Bank, instead of Oriental Bank of Commerce. Since in the meantime, the date for receipt of applications for allotment of shares had expired and the valuation of the shares had doubled, the complainant thus suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. He filed the complaint before the District Forum against UNIT Trust of India as well as against Central Bank of India claiming a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the first year and a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 /- in the next three years along with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. The complaint was contested by the Central Bank of India inter-alia raising several preliminary objections. Jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain was disputed. The complainant could not be treated as a consumer, as defined under the Act. He had not hired the services of the Bank for consideration. The Bank was merely acting as Collection Agent of UTI. The damages claimed were arbitrary. On merits, it was admitted that the application form along with the cheque was submitted to the Bank. It was acting as an Agent of UTI. The Bank was unable to reply to the allegation of dishonouring of the cheque for want of original cheque and the Memo. The complainant was supposed to check his account before issuing the cheque. It was denied that the value of the shares had jumped to Rs. 20/- each. The complainant produced photocopy of the cheque for Rs. 50,000/- as Exb. C/1 and memo of Punjab and Sind Bank, returning the cheque, with the endorsement ''Not drawn on us'' Ex. C/2, application form for purchase of Units and daily quotation list of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. dated November 22,1993 was produced to indicate rise in the UTI Share. It is on the aforesaid material that the District Forum passed the impugned order.

Learned Advocate R.K. Aggarwal, appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the complainant could not be treated as a consumer as he had not hired the services of the appellant Bank for consideration. As per scheme, the Bank was to act as an Agent of the UTI and receive applications for allotment of shares. This contention cannot be accepted. The definition of ''consumer'' is given under Section 2(i) which makes it clear that not only the hirer but the beneficiary of such services would also be a consumer. Even if the UTI had floated the scheme and appointed the appellant-Bank as its agent, in receiving applications for allotment of shares, ultimately the applicants who are allotted shares would be the beneficiaries and if there was any deficiency in the matter of rendering service on the part of the Central Bank, they would be entitled to the relief under the Consumer Protection Act.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant, in support of his contention that the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer, as he has not been allowed any share, relied upon the decision of National Consumer Commission in Ram Narayan Parameshwaraiyer and Another v. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. Ors., I (1993) CPJ 3 (NC). The ratio of the aforesaid decision cannot be applied to the case in hand. No doubt in the present case, shares were not allotted and qua UTI, the complainant cannot be treated as a consumer, however, the position in the present case in entirely different. The application of the complainant was not at all forwarded to the UTI as the cheque accompanied the application was dishonoured. It was the duty of the appellant Bank to recover the amount of the cheque and then send the application to the UTI. The appellant-Bank wrongly sent the cheque to Punjab and Sind Bank on whom it was not drawn and obviously if the cheque was dishonoured by a wrong Bank on account of error on the part of the appellant-Bank, the appellant Bank cannot escape liability for deficiency in rendering service. It is not disputed that the appellant Bank was to charge collection charges for realisation of the amount of the cheque. Thus the finding of the District Forum that the appellant Bank was deficient in rendering service is affirmed. Mr. R.K. Aggarwal, learned Advocate for the appellant had argued that arbitrarily allowing a sum of Rs. 15,000/- in lump-sum in such like cases, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. There is force in this contention. Section 14(1) talks of different reliefs which can be granted to the complainant against the opposite party after holding deficiency in the matter of rendering service or finding defect in the goods. Sub-clause (d) provides for payment of such amount as maybe awarded as compensation for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party and Sub-clause (i) provides for adequate costs to the parties. The matter of granting compensation thus has to be viewed from two angles, firstly the loss suffered and secondly compensation by costs. Allotment of shares is only speculative, not necessarily that all the applications for allotment of shares filed within time shall stand granted. Consequently, even if some evidence is led in the form of daily quotation lists of the Delhi Stock Exchange Association indicating rise in the value of shares that can hardly be taken as ground to allow compensation as claimed, as it is speculative. There is distinction between actual loss suffered and speculative loss. Present is a case of speculative loss, i.e., if the complainant had been allotted the shares, he would have gained a lot, if he had re-sold the same. Otherwise, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- for which cheque was issued remained with the complainant and he could use the same in purchase of other shares, if he so liked.

IN the circumstances stated above, fixation of compensation at random at Rs. 15,000/- is arbitrary. Only a token compensation should have been fixed. We are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- would be just compensation to be fixed in the circumstances of this case and we order accordingly. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellant would pay Rs. 5,000/- in all towards costs and compensation for the deficiency in the matter of rendering service, as held above. Appeal partly allowed.