Catherine, Jude and Aleta DeSouza had invested in five
fixed deposits
of
Bank
of Maharashtra, payable to “any one or survivor”. Aleta later instructed the bank not to break the fixed deposits except in her presence and with her signature. So the bank refused to either renew or repay the deposits on maturity unless all the three holders personally remained present to give joint and unanimous instructions.
Catherine and Jude filed a civil suit in Margao, claiming Rs78,32,808 toward the maturity value of the five deposits, and Rs1 lakh as
compensation
. The court ordered the bank to pay the maturity value, but did not award any compensation. The bank complied with this order.
Subsequently, they filed a consumer complaint against the bank seeking compensation for deficiency in service. The claim was contested on ground that the dispute had already been decided by the civil court. Upholding the bank’s contention, the Goa State Commission
dismissed
the complaint.
Catherine and Jude appealed to the National Commission, which observed that the claim for compensation was an integral part of the main dispute regarding non-repayment of the fixed deposits. It pointed out that the Consumer Protection Act does not confer any new right, but merely provides an additional remedy. So, if the civil court does not award compensation, or if the amount is considered inadequate, the appropriate remedy would be to file an appeal against that order. It held that a fresh complaint would be barred by res judicata, meaning that fresh litigation cannot be filed on the same cause of action.
In an order dated November 18, 2020, delivered by Anup Thakur, the National Commission held that the dismissal of complaint was justified.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt. of India's National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His e mail is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in)
Start a Conversation
Post comment