CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23 Institutional Area
(Behind Qutab Hotel)
NEW DELHI – 110016
Case No. 837/09
Shri Mukul Shanker Sharma
S/o Late Shri R.S. Sharma
R/o RZ-34 Ground Floor
Bhawani Kunj, D-2 Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110070.. …Complainant
Vs.
The Bank Manager
State Bank of Hydrabad
16-Kundan House
Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019.
Shri Anil Kumar Sharma
2nd Floor
R/o RZ-34, Bhawani Kunj
D-2, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi-110070. Respondents
Date of Order : 21-12-2009
ORDER
This order shall disposed off the arguments heard on the point as to whether the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable or not.
Briefly stated the facts of the case for the decision of the aforesaid point are, on 11.7.2000, father of the complainant made four Term Deposits of Rs.80,000/- each with the respondent bank; that in one term deposit he made complainant Mukul Shanker Sharma as the nominee; that in the second term deposit he made Saransh Sharma, son of the complainant, as the nominee; that in the third term deposit he made Abhishek Sharma, son of the complainant, as the nominee and in the fourth term deposit he made Sumit Sharma, son of the complainant, as nominee; that, thus, after the death of his father in 2001 complainant and his sons, being nominees, were entitled to receive the proceeds of the FDRs; that as instead of making the payment of the proceeds of the FDRs to him as well as to his sons respondent-1, in connivance with respondent-2, made payment to Smt. Prabha Sharma illegally and unauthorisedly without intimation and his (complainant) consent hence the present complaint praying therein that respondents should, jointly or severally, be directed to pay principal amount along with the interest @ 10% per annum from 2001 to 4.7.2008; that respondents should also be directed to pay Rs.10Lakhs as damages for mental agony and harassment as well as the cost of litigation.
At the time of preliminary hearing, complainant counsel was directed to argue on the point as to whether complainant falls under the definition of consumer or not. After patiently hearing the arguments and going through the citations our decision is as under:-
Section 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 defines complainant as under:-
(b) “complainant” means—-
(i) a consumer; or
(ii) ………..
(iii) ……….
(iv) ……….
(v) ……….”
Section 2(d) defines consumer as under:-
(d) “consumer” means any person who—
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
(ii) [hires or avails of] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person [but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose];
As in view of the afore discussed facts complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as stated hereinabove, therefore the complainant is not maintainable in this Forum. So far as the citations filed by the complainant counsel is concerned as the facts of the cases in the said citations are different from the facts of this case, therefore the said citations are not relied upon. The complaint is as such dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the complainant and thereafter filed be consigned to record room.
(Salma Noor) (Fr. Moben Michael) (S.K. Tandon)
Member Member President