|
Reserve Bank of India vs. Eshwarappa & Anr. dated 2008-07-24
It is repeatedly contended that once a prohibitory Order under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is passed, the Consumer Fora would have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and pass an order directing the Bank to pay the amount---reading of the aforesaid prohibitory order would indicate that there is no prohibition in filing complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 or suit by a depositor. It only prohibits payment of any amount to the depositors. Such being the case, there is and there cannot be any prohibition to the Consumer Fora entertaining a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and crystallizing the amount due and payable to the aggrieved consumer(s) who are depositors of the bank in question---the main contention of the RBI that the Consumer Fora have no jurisdiction to decide the matter is without any substance and is rejected---considering the delay in litigating from one fora to the other fora and suffering by small investors it is apparent that , the observation made by the Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta, (1994) 1 SCC 243 would aptly apply to the present case. The Court, inter alia, observed: “An ordinary citizen or a common man is hardly equipped to match the might of the State or its instrumentalities”. The Court further observed, “In fact, to meet the long felt necessity of protecting the common man from such wrongs for which the remedy under ordinary law for various reasons has become illusory; the importance of the Act lies in promoting the welfare of the society which enable the consumer to participate directly in the market economy”. read more + |
|
NCDRC Bar Association vs. Davinder Malhotra & Ors. dated 2008-07-18
The State Commission forgets that, in addition to the appellate and revisional jurisdiction under Section 24-B of the Consumer Protection Act, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the National Commission for brief) is having supervisory jurisdiction over consumer fora in the country. This should be remembered by the State Commission before commenting that the orders passed by the National Commission are not binding to the Delhi State Commission---unless there is a contrary judgement by the Apex Court, the State Commission is bound to follow the decision rendered by the National Commission. Further, if there are conflicting decisions rendered by the National Commission, the State Commission may decide the matter appropriately accepting one or the other judgement--- the State Commission must remember that constitution of Bench before the National Commission is absolutely within the jurisdiction of the President of the National Commission and the Benches are to be constituted on the basis of power conferred under Section 20 of the Act. The State Commission has no business to interfere and criticize whether the constitution of Bench is justified or not. read more + |
|
Regional Passport Officer, Bangalore vs. Anuradha Thadipathri Gopinath dated 2008-07-10
There was negligence on the part of the Passport Officer in not signing the passport at the time of its issuance. Visa was also issued on the said passport---The complainant reached the Bombay Airport for her onward journey to Dubai. At the airport, this lacuna came to light and the airport authorities asked her to go back and, hence, she lost the opportunity of going abroad which was sponsored by the company---HELD THAT---issuance or non-issuance of a passport may be a statutory duty and may not be a consumer dispute but issuance of an invalid passport which is not signed by the Passport Officer, would be deficiency in service on the part of the concerned officer as defined under Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act which defines ‘deficiency’---It specifically provides that ‘deficiency’ means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, inadequacy in the nature and manner of performance, which is required to be maintained under any law---the petitioner is charging fee for issuance of passport and, hence, service is availed by paying fee. A passport, which is issued without the signature of the Competent Authority, is on the face of it invalid which would have placed the complainant in a precarious position and she might have been hauled up for various offences if she had tried to go abroad on that passport. Such lapse amounts to a serious deficiency in discharge of duties, which is in the nature of rendering of service, hence, the complaint is maintainable. read more + |
“Awaz” vs. American Express Bank Ltd. dated 2008-07-07
The questions, which require consideration are: (1) Whether the Reserve Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the RBI) is required to issue any circular or guidelines prohibiting the Banks / Non-Banking Financial Institutions / money lenders from charging interest above a specific rate?---HELD THAT---the rapid expansion of banking facilities and of access to credit facilities and on the other hand, it has led, as a result of the aggressive marketing practices adopted, especially, by the banks, which induce the unsuspecting customers to take loans, in one form or the other, for purchasing consumer goods and durables even when they are not quite needed. This makes these consumers debtors forever. Such indebtedness results in constant tension to repay the loans and the “EMIs” – at times well beyond the borrowers’ / debtors’ repaying capacity. The ill effects of unaffordable EMIs are now being highlighted in the print and other media almost daily. In the case of motor vehicle loans, for example, the debtor / borrower is under constant tension that if he fails to pay one or two instalments, he would receive threats from the so-called “recovery agents” of the banks. The RBI has permitted the banks to appoint “recovery agents” on contract, without perhaps fully appreciating the implications that these “recovery agents” are usually musclemen, employing whom increases nothing but goondaism---(2)(a) Whether banks can charge the credit card users interest at rates ranging from 36% to 49% per annum if there is any delay or default in payment within the time specified?----(b) Whether interest at the above-stated rates amounts to charging usurious rates of interest?---HELD THAT---prima facie, charging of interest at rates ranging from 36% to 49% p.a. is exorbitant and amounts to exploitation of the borrowers / debtors and is usurious. read more +
|
