D.P Wadhwa, President:— Four Revisions are by the Complainant and are from the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the order of District Forum, which had dismissed the complaints against the opposite party banks. The two Appeals cross appeals and are also from the orders of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the complaints of the Complainant. The impugned order in the Appeals is dated 19.04.1995 and in the Revisions, all the orders are of 31.12.1997 In the appeal filed by the Complainant it seeks more interest than awarded by the State Commission and in the appeal filed by the Bank, dismissal of the complaint is sought altogether.
Before we proceed further in these matters, we may note that in our earlier order we have recorded that some of the matters raising the same issue are pending before the Supreme Court against earlier orders of this Commission dismissing the Revision Petitions. It was submitted that these matters could be held over till decision by the Supreme Court. We did adjourn these matters from time to time but ultimately we directed that we would like to dispose of these matters in terms of our earlier orders. An order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in those earlier matters, while issuing notices, has been brought on record. This order id dated 15.09.2000 whereby Supreme Court issued notice to show cause why the matter be not remanded to the National Commission. The order of this Commission against which Complainant went to Supreme Court is noted in the order of the Supreme Court which is as under:—
“We agree with the order passed by the State Commission that these cases should be heard by a Civil Court. The Revision petitions are dismissed”
We feel it appropriate to give a reasoned order in the matters now before us.
The facts are similar in all these matters. Tamil Nadu Jai Bharat Mills Ltd., the Complainant, went for a public issue of its shares. It appointed various banks for collecting applications and money, 5 of such banks are before us. Instructions were issued by the Registrar to the Issue to the collecting banks to keep the money collected in a fixed deposit for a period of 46 days and the Term Deposit Receipts (TDRs) issued should mature within 51 working days from the date closure of issue which was 14.11.1992 A further direction was that TDRs should be made in favour of the Complainant company payable at Madras where the controlling branch of the State Bank of India was situated. The Complainant by its letter dated 14.11.1992 instructed the banks to transfer the application money collected, to their refund banks, the State Bank of India, Madras Main Branch and the banks had to pay interest till the transfer of funds was made. Complainant says that the transfer was made only on 20.11.1992 and there was a delay of one day. Alleging deficiency in service, Complaints were filed all over the places seeking interest payment for delay of one day. Banks have denied that there has been any delay or that they were deficient in service. They say that on receipt of a communication dated 19.11.1992 from the Complainant enclosing the basis of allotment of shares held by the Madras Stock Exchange requesting transfer of the public issue share collection amount with interest with the refund banks, the banks immediately transferred the amount on 20.11.1992 It is the further submission of the banks that they were appointed as collective banks by the Registrar to the Issue and they have strictly followed the procedure prescribed by him. Complaints in the Revision Petitions was dismissed by the District Forum and the State Commission on appeal from that order dismissed the Appeals of the Complainant. State Commission referred to Section 73 of the Companies Act and held that apart from the fact that there was no deficiency in service, the money did not belong to the Complainant.
The bank in the appeals state that instruction was received by it from the Appellant and the Stock Exchange only on 18.11.1992 and 19.11.1992 and immediately thereafter, the money was sent to the State Bank of India on 20.11.1992 It is further stated that the delay of one day alleged to have occurred only due to the fact that the Complainant had sent the letter to the Zonal Office of the bank instead of sending it to bank directly and so it took time for the bank. The letter dated 14.11.1992 of the Complainant was received by the Zonal Office of the Appellant bank on 17.11.1992 which sent the letter to the Appellant bank on 18.11.1992 On 19.11.1992, bank received the Certificate of Allotment dated 19.11.1992 from the Stock Exchange, Madras and immediately the money collected was transferred on 20.11.1992 Reference has also been made to Section 73(3)(A) of the Companies Act.
After examining the whole aspect of the matter, we are of the view that the banks in these cases had acted in a bonafide manner and it could not be alleged that they were deficient in any way in service. That being so, the complaints had to be dismissed. To maintain the complaint, it was for the Complainant to show that there was any deficiency in service by the banks and unless that is done, Complainant could not ask for any payment for loss of interest alleged to have occurred on account of one day's delay. The Revision Petitions and the Appeal No. 340 of 1995 are dismissed and Appeal No. 558 of 1995 filed by the Bank of Baroda is allowed. In that case order of the State Commission is set aside and complaint dismissed.