Introducing Additional Document During Revision Stage Permitted If Material In Nature: NCDRC

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, presided by AVM J. Rajendra, held that the introduction of additional documents during the revision stage is permitted if the said documents are material in nature. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant, an NRI doctor who had returned to India in 1990, received a British Government pension in Great Britain Pounds(GBP) deposited in his Bank of Scotland UK account. He had RBI permission to maintain FCNR accounts and had conducted various financial transactions with the bank since 1998. In a recent transaction, he transferred GBP 40,000 to his account with the bank, requesting it be kept in a fixed deposit in GBP. However, he later found Rs. 31,00,000 in his account due to unauthorized conversion to INR. Despite his requests, the bank refused to revert the conversion, incorrectly citing that the Bank of Scotland UK had converted the funds. The complainant highlighted previous successful currency conversions done by the bank and filed a complaint with the District Commission, seeking reconversion to GBP, maintaining the fixed deposit, and compensation of Rs. 4,50,000 for monetary loss and hardship. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, after which the complainant appealed to the State Commission of Karnataka. The State Commission allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by the State Commission's order, the bank filed a revision petition before the National Commission. Contentions of the Bank The bank contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. They clarified that their branch was not an authorized dealer in foreign currency, so transactions involving foreign currency were handled by the main branch in Bangalore, which was not included in the complaint. The amount in question was transferred via the bank's branch in Scotland using a Swift Message. The bank argued that the Mangalore branch promptly processed the request and credited the amount to the complainant's account in a timely manner. They had no direct role in the currency conversion process, as evidenced by the Swift Message confirming the crediting of funds to his account in INR. The bank refuted the claim that they received any written request from the complainant to maintain the funds in GBP without converting them to INR. They asserted that once funds are credited in INR, the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and RBI rules prohibit re-conversion into foreign currency. Observations by the National Commission The National Commission observed that the primary issues to be determined were whether the bank had the authority to convert GBP currency into INR and deposit it into the Complainant's SB account without his consent and whether the Complainant had given instructions to the bank that could affect the outcome of the case. The Complainant had filed a petition seeking to introduce letters to the bank, requesting the bank to credit GBP.40,000 into his account. In Jiten K. Ajmera & Anr. v. Tejas Cooperative Housing Society, the court established the legal position regarding the admission of additional documents at the revision stage. The case emphasized that such additional documents pertaining to the complainant's request to the respondent bank are considered material, even if objected to by the opposing counsel. It was undisputed that the Complainant had an SB account in the bank's branch in Mysore, and he had permission from the Foreign Exchange Control Department of RBI for such remittances. However, at that time, the bank did not have foreign exchange facilities at the Mysore branch, making it impermissible to convert currency from INR to GBP/Euros or vice versa. The entire GBP 40,000 was transferred into the Complainant's SB account at the bank in Mysore. The contention of the Complainant was that this amount should have been retained in the account in the form of foreign currency, which was GBP. However, the Complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service with respect to the service rendered by the bank in Mysore. Based on these observations, the commission set aside the impugned order passed by the learned State Commission and upheld the order of the learned District Forum. The National Commission allowed the revision petition, set aside the State Commission's order, and ruled that the bank was not deficient in its service. Case Title: Bank of India Vs. Dr. Mahesh Kumar Case Number: R.P. No. 645/2022Click Here To Read/Download Order

Introducing Additional Document During Revision Stage Permitted If Material In Nature: NCDRC

Ayushi Rani

Tags