ARUN BHATIYA versus HDFC BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 91 · Decided: 08-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
91
ARUN BHATIYA
v.
HDFC BANK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5204-5205 of 2022)
AUGUST 08, 2022
[DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Deficiency of service by
bank – Allegation of – Appellant and his father, opened a joint
Fixed Deposit – The essence of the complaint of the appellant was
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 State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (SCDRC), declined to entertain the complaint on the
ground that the dispute essentially was between the appellant and
his father and did not fulfill the description of a consumer dispute –
SCDRC was of the view that only a civil court was competent to
deal with such a dispute – Appeal was dismissed by the NCDRC –
On appeal, held: 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 – There was a manifest error on the part of the SCDRC in declining
to entertain the consumer complaint on merits – The SCDRC had no
justification to relegate the appellant to pursue his claim before a
civil court – The appellant did not, in the proceedings before the
SCDRC, raise any claim against his father – Therefore, the SCDRC
was wrong deducing that there was dispute between appellant and
his father – The order of the NCDRC is set aside.
Allowing the appeals, this Court
HELD: 1. The present case arises under the 1986 Act,
which was enacted to protect the welfare and interest of
consumers. 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
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 91
91
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
a consequence, it would be open to such a consumer to seek
recourse to the remedies provided under the 1986 Act. 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 SCDRC had  no
justification to relegate the appellant to pursue his claim before a
civil court. The appellant did not, in the proceedings before the
SCDRC, raise any claim against his father. Therefore, the SCDRC
was wrong deducing that there was dispute between appellant
and his father. Assuming that there was a dispute between the
appellant and his father, that was not the subject matter of the
consumer complaint. The complaint that there was a deficiency of
service was against the bank. [Paras 14, 19 & 20][97-B-C; 99-C-
G]
Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. Sanjay
Shankarsa Mamarde (2010) 7 SCC 489 : [2010] 8 SCR
358; Vodafone Idea Cellular Limited v. Ajay Kumar
Agarwal (2022) 6 SCC 496 : 2022 (3 ) JT 95 – referred
to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 8 SCR 358                       referred to               Para 16
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 5204-
5205 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2019 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Review
Application No. 221 of 2019 in First Appeal No. 2262 of 2018 and Order
dated 07.05.2019 in First Appeal No. 2262 of 2018.
Kushagra Pandey, Ms. Ankita Gupta, M. Shaz Khan, Harsh Kedia,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
93
Talha Abdul Rahman, Advs. for the Appellant.
Arvind Nayar, Sr. Adv., Devmani Bansal, Vikas Kumar, Manish
Paliwal, Manoj Rajpoot, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeals arise from two orders of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission1, namely, (i) an order dated 7 May 2019
by which the NCDRC dismissed the appeal as withdrawn with liberty to
approach the appropriate forum on the request of t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.