The appellants – the Chairman and the Manager of the City Union Bank Limited have preferred the present appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 01.02.2007 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in First Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/dismissal-of-bail-application-in-money-laundering-case/
No 29 of 2005 arising out of the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai in O.P.
As per the further case of the respondent, a Current Account bearing No 3600 was opened in the name of the said company with the appellants’- bank on 13.04.1995 and the respondent alone was permitted to operate the said account. On the reconciliation of the accounts, it was found that the said two demand drafts were not credited in the said current account of the company opened with the appellant no.
Thereafter, correspondence ensued between the appellants and the respondent and it was found that a separate account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” was opened and the said two drafts were credited in that account, as the said demand drafts were in the name of “D-Cube Construction”.
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the State Commission and the National Commission had committed an error in not appreciating the fact that in absence of any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the performance, which was required to be maintained by the appellants’ bank, it could not be presumed that there was deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’)
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/criminal/statutory-right-of-default-bail-in-incomplete-chargesheet/
According to him, as per the letter dated 15.02.1997 addressed to the appellant-bank by the “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.”, stating that the said Company had no objection if current account in the name of “D-Cube Construction” was opened, the said account was opened by Shri R. Thulasiram would not have encashed the drafts in question by opening a new current account in the name of “D- Cube Construction”.
It is also not disputed that the two drafts in question were issued in the name of “D-Cube Construction” and not in the name of “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.” The Current Account No. 3600 was in the name of “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.”, whereas the Current Account Thulasiram as the proprietor of “D-Cube Construction”, relying upon the letter dated 15.02.1997 written on behalf of the “D-Cube Constructions (P) Ltd.”, and when the disputed two drafts in question which were in the name of “D-Cube Construction”, were credited in the account of “D-Cube Construction”, it could not be said that there was any willful default or imperfection or short coming so as to term it as the deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-bank within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the said Act. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, even if the allegations made in the complaint are taken on their face value, then also it clearly emerges that there was no wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the discharge of the duty on the part of the employees of the appellants’ bank, which could be termed as “deficiency in service” under Section 2(1)(g) of the said Act.
There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/illegality-of-arrest-under-pmla/
The appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Case Title: C.M.D.,CITY UNION BANK LIMITED . Vs. R.CHANDRAMOHAN (2023 INSC 300)
Case Number: C.A. No.-007289-007289 / 2009
