Person who avails any banking service is 'consumer' under Consumer Protection Act: Supreme Court

A person who avails any banking service falls within the scope of the definition of 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, and can take recourse to legal remedies provided in the Act, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed [Arun Bhatiya vs HDFC Bank and ors]..A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna ruled that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) was wrong in declining to hear the case of a person on merits merely because the dispute involved the father of the person as well."The respondent-bank does not dispute that the appellant, along with his father, opened a joint FD with the bank. A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’ under the 1986 Act. As a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act," the Court said..The case arose out of two orders passed by the the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in 2019 dismissing the review applications of the appellant against orders of the SCDRC at Lucknow. The NCDRC had relied on a note submitted by the appellant's counsel to withdraw the case. The appellant and his father had opened a joint Fixed Deposit (FD) account of ₹75 lakh in 2016 at an Agra branch of the respondent-bank, HDFC.The amount of the FD on maturity was ₹77 lakh, given 7.5 per cent interest. The appellant and his father jointly gave written instructions to the bank to renew the joint FD for ten days, while retaining the joint mode of operation. Contrary to the said instruction, the proceeds of the FD were credited to the account of the appellant’s father. .The respondent-bank in its affidavit before the top court claimed that the appellant had misrepresented the age and health of his father to book a second FD using the money in the first FD, and hence the sum was credited to the appellant's father. The appellant argued that the premature encashment of the FD by respondent-bank was in contravention of the terms and conditions of the joint-FD, and amounted to a deficiency in service under Section 2(1)(g) of the Act. The Bench stated that the SCDRC had no justification to relegate the appellant to pursue his claim before a civil court, as he had not raised any claim or cited any dispute against his father. It was wrong on part of the bank to assume the same when the issue was of deficiency of service, the Court explained."There was a manifest error on the part of the SCDRC in declining to entertain the consumer complaint on merits. Whether the appellant is able to establish his case is a matter which has to be decided within the parameters of law as it emerges from the provisions of the 1986 Act. The essence of the complaint of the appellant is that there was a deficiency on the part of the respondent bank in proceeding to credit the proceeds of a joint FD exclusively to the account of his father. The SCDRC ought to have determined whether the complaint related to deficiency of service as defined under the 1986 Act," the Court held.Further, with the appellant having stated that he had not asked his counsel to withdraw the appeal, the NCDRC should have heard the review, the top court held. The appeals were, therefore, allowed and the NCDRC was directed to dispose of the appeal on merits within four months. .Advocate Kushagra Pandey appeared for the appellant while Senior Advocate Arvind Nayar appeared for the respondents. .[Read Judgment]