Person Availing Bank’s Service “Consumer”; Consumer Complaint Maintainable Over Dispute On Encashment Of FD
Case: Arun Bhatiya vs HDFC Bank
Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna
Case No.: CA 5204-5205 of 2022
Court Observation: “A person who avails of any service from a bank will fall under the purview of the definition of a ‘consumer’ and it would be open to such a consumer to seek recourse to the remedies provided under the Consumer Protection Act”
“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 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.”
Previous Posts
