H.R. DARVESH vs Punjab National Bank

THE issuance of fake foreign currency by Punjab National Bank; use thereof in good faith by the complainants abroad; subsequent detection of the same by the authorities abroad; concommitant humiliation of the ''consumers'' and later on, realising the currency to be fake; issuance of the genuine currency instead and the action taken under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in short, is the subject matter of the present complaint.

COMPLAINANT-1 H.R. Darvesh is the husband of Sm. Shil Darvesh and father of Rajan Sharma, complainants-2 and 3 respectively. The facts constituting the fabric of the complaint, as depicted therein are summarised as under:- COMPLAINANT-1, as an Executive Director, is managing and controlling the entire business and affairs of Mukerian Paper Mills Ltd., Hoshiarpur. He claims to be an expert in pulp and paper milling. By dint of devotion and hardwork, he has turned many sick units into profit-earning industries. He is the winner of many National and International Awards in this respect. He was selected from the whole of India and from Non-Resident Indians throughout the world, by the International Friendship Society of India based at Bangkok (Thailand) for the awand of "Pride of India Gold Award" which he was to receive on 10-10-1992. He made a programme to carry his wife and younger son complainants-2 and 3 respectively with him for seeing the ceremony and also for sight-seeing. They applied for 1,000 dollars under Foreign Travellers Scheme (FTS). COMPLAINANT-1 had also to go to England for attending a technical conference later on. Therefore, he applied for 500 dollars against complainants-2 and 3 each, totalling 1,000 dollars. Respondent-2 took Rs. 30,500/- for issuing ten currency bills of 100 dollars each vide Bank''s receipts Annexure Al. From Delhi International Airport on 9-10-1992 they took 20 dollars against each passport. On reaching Bangkok Airport, for taking visa, the went to a counter for getting exchanged the dollars issued by the respondent-Bank into Bahts. They were apprised that all the ten bills were fake. Being in a'' difficult position, they had to pay the Airport Authorities towards visa charges, the dollars which they had received at the Delhi Airport. They in disturbed mind managed to proceed to Hotel Hilton, Bangkok in a taxi. There they met Gurmit Singh of Delhi, who was associated with the Award giving agency. With his help at the hotel, they were able to get 100 dollars exchanged for Bahts against the signatures of complainant-1, giving duplicate slip to them. They also got exchanged 400 dollars for Bahts. They sajourned at Singapore for about a week. However, throughout this stay, they were always having a fear in their minds that the dollar bills accepted by the hotel might turn out to be fake and they might not be in some trouble for carrying counterfeit currency. Then they had to visit Singapore for a business purpose where they faced the same difficulty of exchange of currency. For exchange, complainant-1 contacted one of the money-changers. He offered three bills of 100 dollars each to the money changer. The money-changer seemed to have detected the dollars to be fake and they had to retreat, leaving the dollars with him. Remaining dollars they were able to utilise. Hard pressed for money, there they had to dispose of their customary and valuable belongings that they had received from their kith and kin on various ceremonies in India to meet the daily expenses for stay at Singapore. Ultimately, they had to come back to Delhi Airport after suffering the ordeal of six days''s trip. As a result of this sad experience, complainant-2 fell ill seriously. She was given medical treatment at New Delhi Airport and subsequently at Mukerian for about 1 months. Preparation of complainant3 for pre-medical entrance test also suffered, as he could not study for about a month due to shock of foreign tour. On 18-10-92 the Agency that gave him the award, sent a fax message to Jagmohan Singh, intimating that 500 dollar bills submitted by complainant-1 to Hotel Hilton International, Bangkok had been returned by Siam Commercial Bank, Thailand through Jagmohan Singh, as the rooms occupied by the complainants were got booked in his name. The information regarding the fake bills was received by them through the Delhi Office. They were accused of running the counterfeit currency and deceiving the said hotel management. On contact with respondent2 Bank, the currency notes tallied with its record. The relevant photostat copies of correspondence are Annexures A6 to A10. Annexure A-11 concerns with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India about foreign exchange currency. On notice being issued, the respondentsBank has put forth its version in the written statement. The allegations of the respondent-Bank are that complainant-1 is not a ''consumer'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (''the COPRA'' in brief). The dollars were given to complainants-2 and 3. The complaint involves complex questions of highly disputed facts and law. It requires recording and examination of elaborate and voluminous evidence which cannot be properly done in the consumer jurisdiction of this Commission. Such matters can be determined satisfactorily by the Civil Court. The complainants have not come to the Commission clean hands and they have suppressed the material facts. Violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is attributed to them. Complainants-2 and 3 had applied for foreign currency under the FTS meant for pleasure trip only, but they used the foreign exchange for business purpose. They are guilty of giving false declaration at the time of availing of FTS facility. They applied to the Bank for 500 US Dollars each for having pleasure trip from Delhi to Bangkok-Singapore-Bangkok-Delhi through Thai Air Lines, under the FTS facility under the scheme which is available once in three calendar years and cannot be combined with the visit on export promotion and other business grounds. The complainants landed in India on 16-10-1992. Till 28-10-1992 complainant-1 had nothing to complain against the respondent-Bank. It is admitted that after 18-10-92 complainant-1 got the information from Jagmohan Singh that the dollars given by the complainants to Hilton International Bangkok were refused by Siam Commercial Bank, Bangkok. On 28-10-1992 the respondent-Bank asked him to make an application in writing which he did on 2-11-1992. The Bank took immediate action and after verification and permission from Reserve Bank of India made the payment. There was absolutely no negligence on its part. In fact, the dollar could not be detected as counterfeit even by Siam Commercial Bank, Bangkok immediately on presentation. The counterfeit Dollars were so meticulously prepared that even the respondent-Bank could not detect in the ordinary course of business. The Bank took all the care and caution, as a prudent man, but still "to err is human" dictum could not be ruled out. The complainants never complained of selling their alleged belongings to defray the necessary expenses abroad. It is an afterthought. Conversion of foreign exchange from pleasure trip to business purpose is a serious offence. The respondent-Bank is not guilty of any deficient service. It was a bona fide mistake which was not detected in the course of business in spite of taking due care and caution which a prudent man would take. The damages have not been determined by the complainants. The Bank has placed on record photostat copies of correspondence Annexures R1 to R3.

With the assistance of the Learned Counsel for the parties, we have gone through the entire case file and done the necessary scrutiny thereof.

AT the very outset, two-pronged bombshell fired by Sh. Bansal, raising strenuously and speciously primal jurisdictional pleas need be neutralised. Complainant-1 H.R. Darvesh is not a consumer and complicated facts raised in the complaint cannot be adjudicated upon by this Commission. The Learned Counsel did not cite any chapter or verse in support of the pleas raised.

IT needs no great erudition to hold that the definition of the term "consumer" as given in Sec. 2(1)(d) of the COPRA casts the net very wide and transcends the somewhat narrow concept. The COPRA is a social welfare legislation. IT is well established canon of construction that the interpretation of the social welfare legislation is to be for suppressing the mischief and advancing the remedy and the object for which it has been brought on the statute book. The COPRA has been enacted for the betterment and protection of the "consumer" alone and for him alone, the various redressal for as have been constituted and the whole in frast fucture under it errected. The intendment of the COPRA is to wipe out and finish the exploitation of the "consumer" in every walk of life. Well stretched arms of the COPRA have been dilated by this Commission in "Original Complaint No. 28 of 1991, Bhupinder Singh v. Omega Agro (P) Ltd. & Others, decided on 10-7-1993. Shri Bansal, learned Counsel has raised a sentimental plea that complainants-2 and 3 applied to the Bank vide Annexures R1 and R2 respectively for the issuance of foreign currency notes and currency notes worth 1,000 dollars were issued to them alone. Complainant-1 has not done any dealing whatsoever with the Bank. We are afraid to countenance the plea of the Learned Counsel in view of his candid admission of the fact that complainant-1 is the husband of complainant-2 and father of complainant-3. On the exhibition of the present facts, this Commission cannot infer, perceive, conceive, discern and behold that a male-member of the family of complainants-2 and 3, using currency notes, along with them, issued by the Bank, would not be a "consumer". The Legislature has put things beyond any shadow of doubt by putting the beneficiary of service in the inclusive definition of the "consumer". Such a view, as put forth by Shri Bansal cannot be countenanced and is directly contrary to the definition clause and the plea raised by the Learned Counsel pales into insignificance under the teeth of the comprehensive definition. The facts comprising the instant case do not confront us to be complicated one as sought to be made out by the Learned Counsel. In any case, not to go deep in the case involving the complicated facts and points of law and refusal to adjudicate such cases by the redressal for as established under the COPRA, is a self imposed restriction on their part and does not oust their adjudicatory jurisdiction. By no stretch of imagination it cannot bar the jurisdiction of the foras. Rather, Sub-section (3) of Sec, 13 of the COPRA confers categorical powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure on the redressal foras for:- (i) the summoning and enforcing attendance of any defendant or witness and examining the witness on oath; (ii) the discovery and production of any document or other material object producible as evidence; (iii) the reception of evidence on affidavit; (iv) the requisitioning of the report of the concerned analysis or test from the appropriate laboratory or from any other relevant source; (v) issuing of any commission for the examination of any witness; and (vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

Hence, the plea sans merit and is rejected being devoid of force. The decks have now been cleared of the legal aspect, we may now turn to the factual one. The complainants have chosen not to file any affidavit, even their own in support of the averments made. Hence, the present complaint is a case of ''tittle evidence''. Otherwise also, we express our regret to accept the story put forth by the complainants as made in the complaint of handing over 300 dollars for exchange to a moneychanger and detection on his part turning out the same to be fake. Such a submission must boomrang on the complainants'' plea when confronted with the representation Annexure R3 dated 2-11-1992 made by complainant-1 to the Manager of the respondent Bank, i.e. Punjab National Bank, Overseas Branch, Civil Lines, Jalandhar. No such grievance of the handing over of 300 dollars later on found to be fake by a money-changer has been hinted at even remotely in Annexure R3. Even before making the representation Annexure R3 dated 2-11-1992, it is nowhere the case of the complainants that even when they were abroad, any complaint whatsoever was lodged by them with the Bank. Similar is the fate regarding the plea of refusal on the part of the Bank to issue the alleged traveller cheques. No grouse whatsoever is proved to have been made before filing the present complaint in this Commission. Hence, we are constrained not to accept the plea of handing over 300 dollars to a money changer. Moreover, the story of 300 dollars and refusal not to issue the travellers cheques on the part of the respondent-Bank is not supported by any evidence whatsoever. Rather, it seems to us to be an after thought. There is no modicum of merit in the case of the complainant in this respect.

BE it may, there is no denying the fact on the part of the respondent-Bank and rather, its admission is demonstrated on the record by Annexure A8 dated 3-11-92 issued by the respondent-Bank at Jalandhar to complainant-1 that 500 fake dollars were initially issued by the Bank to complainants2 and 3 and vide Annexure A9 dated 8-12-92, the Bank has admitted that US Dollars 500 were remitted to Hilton International Bangkok vide draft No. 21095 dated 25-11-92 in settlement of the dues.

IT is a sordid and shocking state of affairs that one of the premier Nationalised Bank, functioning in the country, is found to have issued fake dollars to its customers. Regard being given to the human-affairs, We unhesitatingly come to the logical conclusion that intolerable inconveniences, suffering and humiliation must have been caused to the complainants on a foreign trip, admitted by both the parties to be a pleasure trip and highlighted by the obvious fact that complainant1 is stated to have gone abroad to receive "Pride of India Gold Award". IT looms large that the respondent-Bank has treated the "consumers" in somewhat cavalier from its duty. IT cannot save its skin from the clutches of the Roaring Tiger the COPRA.. No other point was urged. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances and the facts placed before us, we feel that the ends of justice will be met if the respondent-Bank pays a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for the wrongful action caused and for rendering deficient service to the complainants and modest costs quantified by us to be Rs. 1,000/-. We order accordingly. We do hope that to save the fair name of the mother country, the authorities holding echelon of the respondent-Bank would take the necessary precautions to avoid the recurrence of such a lapse in future and will set its affairs right. For the reasons and in the terms recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the respondent-Bank to comply with our orders within one month of the receipt of a copy of this order. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned and records consigned. Complaint partly allowed.