1995 (1) TMI 266 - HC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDF).
2. Definition and scope of "consumer dispute" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Whether the refusal to release shares by the bank constitutes a deficiency in service.
4. Availability and appropriateness of alternative remedies.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (CDF):
The petitioners sought to quash proceedings in CDF Case No. 94 of 1994, arguing that the CDF lacked inherent jurisdiction. They contended that the refusal to grant a loan by a commercial bank is within the bank's discretion and does not constitute a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court noted that banking transactions, including the provision of loans, fall within the ambit of the Act.

2. Definition and Scope of "Consumer Dispute" under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986:
The court examined the definitions provided in the Act, particularly Section 2 which defines "complaint," "consumer," "consumer dispute," and "service." The Act includes banking services within its scope, and a dispute over the refusal to release shares could be considered a "consumer dispute" if it involves a deficiency in service. The court emphasized that the Act is a complete code designed to provide speedy relief to consumers and should be the first forum to address such disputes.

3. Whether the Refusal to Release Shares by the Bank Constitutes a Deficiency in Service:
The respondents argued that the bank's refusal to release shares was arbitrary and constituted a deficiency in service. The court noted that the question of whether there was a deficiency in service should be determined by the CDF. The court cited several precedents, including South Indian Bank Ltd. v. President/Secretary, Tamil Nadu Consumers Council and State Bank of Hyderabad v. Sri Bairi Lingam, which held that deficiencies in banking services fall under the purview of the Act.

4. Availability and Appropriateness of Alternative Remedies:
The court emphasized the principle that where an equally efficacious remedy is available under a statute, the High Court should not exercise its writ jurisdiction. The court cited K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain and Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which held that statutory remedies should be exhausted before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the petitioners should raise their issues before the CDF, which is the appropriate forum under the Act.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners have an efficacious remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court did not delve into the merits of the case, leaving it to the CDF to determine the issues of jurisdiction and the alleged deficiency in service. The court emphasized that the Consumer Protection Act is a comprehensive code designed to provide speedy relief to consumers, and disputes related to banking services fall within its ambit. The petitioners were directed to pursue their remedies before the CDF.