THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO W.P.No.13530 OF 2001 ORDER: This writ petition is directed against the Order dated 27- 02-2001, passed in C.D.No.93 of 2000, by the 1st respondent – State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The 1st respondent - State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission) dismissed the C.D.No.93 of 2000 lodged by the writ petitioner, at the stage of admission, without issuing even a formal notice to the 2nd respondent bank, who is the opposite party in the above referred consumer dispute. The facts of the case are that; the writ petitioner is a Non Resident Indian (NRI) working as an Engineer at Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, between 1981 to 1998. During this period, he was regularly remitting his savings in foreign currency to an account maintained by him with Bank of Baroda, Abids Branch, Hyderabad. During the year 1990 State Bank of India came up with a scheme called ‘NRI (Second Series) Bonds’ with a view to mobilize foreign exchange. Attracted by the terms and conditions and features offered, the writ petitioner rooted a total amount of $ 50,000/- (fifty thousand U.S. Dollars) from out of his account maintained with the Bank of Baroda, Abids Branch, Hyderabad. Accordingly, the writ petitioner has been allotted and issued necessary ‘NRI (Second Series) Bonds’ by the 2nd respondent herein. These Bonds are redeemable after a period of seven years from 01-04-1991. However, the writ petitioner has not surrendered the duly discharged Bonds seeking the payment of redemption value by the date of maturity, namely, 01-04-1998. The writ petitioner contends that he has not received any notice from the 2nd respondent requesting him for such surrender, but however, he is candid enough in admitting that he has received a communication sent up by post by the 2nd respondent dated 23-03-1999, reminding him to surrender the NRI (Second Series) Bonds for redemption. However, the fact remains that the writ petitioner surrendered the duly discharged NRI (Second Series) Bonds on 09-03-2000, specifically requesting for reinvestment of the maturity proceeds in a special term deposit scheme for a period of thirty months commencing from 01-04-1998. However, the 2nd respondent bank appears to have reinvested the maturity proceeds of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds, which worked out to Rs.41,60,213/- for a period of thirty months commencing from 18-03-2000 and consequently, the maturity date was set as 18-09-2002. These special term deposit certificates have also been retained by the 2nd respondent bank. The writ petitioner has taken up the matter with the 2nd respondent bank by causing a legal notice issued on 30-05-2000, claiming interest for the period from 01-04-1998 to 17-03-2000. In response thereto, the 2nd respondent, through their communication dated 10-07- 2000, has categorically disputed and denied any obligation to pay interest as claimed by the writ petitioner. Though the writ petitioner has once again taken up the issue by sending a rejoinder on 13-10-2000, there is no relief secured by him and through a communication sent up on 01-11-2000, the 2nd respondent bank has denied any unjust or improper act on its part in denying payment of interest to the writ petitioner beyond the date of maturity of the NRI bonds. In this background, the writ petitioner has instituted the consumer dispute (C.D.No.93 of 2000) complaining of deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd respondent bank and prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.11,58,857/- representing cumulative interest @ 12% per annum for the period from 01-04-1998 to 17-03-2000 and payment of further interest @ 18% on the said sum. He also prayed for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards protracted mental agony and inconvenience suffered and a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation. It is this consumer dispute, which has been entertained by the State Commission and by the order passed on 27-02-2001, dismissed the same at the admission stage. The State Commissioner has assigned two reasons; (1) that it is one of the conditions of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds issued to the writ petitioner, that if they are presented for encashment after the date of maturity, the conversion rate, which is prevailing on the date of maturity will be applied and no interest will accrue on the certificates after the date of maturity. Therefore, the State Commission had come to the conclusion that the writ petitioner, complainant before it, was only entitled for the benefit of the conversion rate of U.S. Dollars as at the date of redemption instead of at the rate prevailing as on the date of the maturity i.e., 01-04-1998. This benefit, perhaps the State Commission thought, would offset any further compensation payable to the claimants. Hence, the claim of the writ petitioner, complainant before it, i.e., liability to pay interest between 01-04-1998 to 17-03-2000, was held as not entitled for. (2) It was further held by the State Commission that the said Bonds have matured on 01-04-1998, while the complaint itself has been filed after two years and hence, it is barred by time. We have heard, at great length, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner Sri T.V.L.Narasimha Rao and Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent – State Bank of India. Sri Narasimha Rao has raised several contentions in support of the claim of the writ petitioner for payment of interest for the period commencing from 01-04-1998 till the maturity proceeds of the said Bonds have been reinvested in a special term deposit, on 18-03-2000. He laid great emphasis upon a fact that the same State Bank of India, which floated the NRI (First Series) Bonds, on the previous occasion, had, in fact, paid interest for the period beyond the date of maturity till they are redeemed, extending the concept of “Overdue Maturity Proceeds of Domestic Rupee Term Deposit Proceeds”, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. Whereas Sri Madan Mohan Rao, learned Standing Counsel would submit that the NRI (Second Series) Bonds have been floated as per the scheme evolved by the Reserve Bank of India and the proceeds collected in foreign exchange by the State Bank of India are all remitted to the Reserve Bank of India and it is the Reserve Bank of India, which held the custody of the foreign exchange so earned and utilized the same in the manner considered appropriate by it. As and when any customer surrendered the NRI Bonds for redemption, the State Bank of India, in turn, would be taking up the matter with the Reserve Bank of India and the Reserve Bank of India was transferring the maturity equivalent proceeds, applying the rate of conversion available as at the time of such redemption. Therefore, the State Bank of India, which has not utilized the foreign exchange forming part of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds, cannot now be made liable to pay interest for the period beyond the date of redemption, namely, 01-04-1998. The learned Standing Counsel would, in fact, submit that the State Bank of India acted as an agent to the Reserve Bank of India and, therefore, it cannot be held accountable for payment of interest. The learned Standing Counsel had, however, pointed out that if, by any accident, interest was paid to any customer by the State Bank of India with regard to NRI (First Series) Bonds, the same would be a case of mistake and a mistake cannot be compelled to be committed again by any person. Further, the learned Standing Counsel would submit that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the State Bank of India for it to be mulcted with the accountability to pay for interest for the delayed redemption of the NRI Bonds, which is wholly due to the fault and delay occasioned at the hands of the writ petitioner claimant. We would prefer to deal with the second ground assigned by the State Commission for dismissing the consumer dispute first. It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner - complainant had, in fact, surrendered the NRI (Second Series) Bonds on 09-03-2000 for redemption and the proceeds have, accordingly, been reinvested in special rupee term deposits by the 2nd respondent bank effective from 18-03-2000. It is only thereafter the complainant sought for payment of interest for the interregnum period between 01-04-1998 up to 17-03- 2000. That claim was negatived by the 2nd respondent bank on 10-07-2000 and again reiterated the same stand on 01-11- 2000. Therefore, the grievance of the writ petitioner, complainant before the State Commission, was not with regard to the payment of redemption value of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds, for the period of limitation to commence on 01- 04-1998. The 2nd respondent bank has, in fact, paid the equivalent Indian rupee redemption value of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds surrendered by the writ petitioner complainant. Therefore, there was no grievance by the writ petitioner complainant in that regard. His grievance is all about the failure of the 2nd respondent bank to pay interest for the period commencing from 01-04-1998 up to 17-03-2000. The consumer dispute is instituted in the year 2000 itself and the same is also decided on 27-02-2001, which is, therefore, less than a two-year period, when so computed from 18-03-2000. Hence, the complaint lodged by the writ petitioner was within the period of limitation of 2 years, as prescribed in Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, when the cause of action arose for the first time on 10.7.2000, when the bank denied any obligation to pay interest beyond 1.4.1998. Therefore, we are firmly of the opinion that the State Commission has not properly appreciated the grievance of the complainant before it. The State Commission has gravely erred in computing the period of limitation of two years from 01-04-1998. The period of limitation would be liable to be so computed, if the complainant has made any grievance out of non-payment of the maturity proceeds of the NRI (Second Series) Bonds. Clearly, that was not the grievance for which the consumer dispute has been instituted. Hence, we are convinced that the State Commission has erred in dismissing the consumer dispute as barred by limitation. Dealing with the merits of the matter, two important aspects strike on us; (1) the writ petitioner has admitted in Paragraph No.8 of the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that he has received the communication dated 23- 03-1999, sent up by the 2nd respondent bank reminding him to surrender the NRI (Second Series) Bonds for redemption. However, the writ petitioner has surrendered the NRI (Second Series) Bonds duly discharged for redemption only on 09-03-2000. There does not appear any justifiable reason to make an allegation with regard to the deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd respondent bank beyond 23-03-1999. Giving a reasonable period of one week for surrendering the duly discharged NRI (Second Series) Bonds from that date, hence, there does not appear to be any justifiable reason for claiming interest from 01-04-1999. If the petitioner has surrendered the NRI Bonds pursuant to this communication dated 23.3.1999, he would have surely mitigated the loss beyond 1.4.1999. He is also required to take all necessary measures to mitigate the loss. However, this aspect also deserves to be considered by the State Commission. It’s determination can depend upon the evidence, which is liable to be gathered in that regard. Certainly, as to whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd respondent bank between 01-04-1998 to 23-03-1999, or for that matter, up to 17-03-2000, are all questions, which are liable to be determined, based upon an inquiry after collection of necessary evidence. It would not be possible, with any sense of justification and precision to determine as to whether there was any deficiency or lack of appropriate service on the part of the 2nd respondent bank, in the given fact situation. Therefore, most appropriate course ought to have been adopted, is to allow both sides to lead evidence in the matter. During the course of the collection of evidence, the 2nd respondent bank would have also established as to the conversion rate of an U.S. Dollar prevailing as on 01-04-1998, in comparison to the actual conversion value of the same as on 17-03-2000. If, for any reason, there is an increase in the conversion rate of U.S Dollar as on 18-03-2000, compared to it’s value as of 1.4.1998, and as to whether such an increase itself is an adequate compensation, which the writ petitioner has gained, is a question, which was available for the State Commission to consider. It is difficult for us to speculate on that aspect. Perhaps, the State Commission would have modulated the entire exercise based upon the quantum of increase in the conversion rate, the benefit of which the writ petitioner, complainant before it, has enjoyed by securing redemption of NRI (Second Series) Bonds as on 18-03-2000 instead of 01-04-1998. These are all questions, which squarely depend upon the evidence, which was liable to be marshaled before it. Therefore, the 1st respondent State Commission ought to have admitted the case, instead of dismissing it at the admission stage. Sri Narasimha Rao, has urged us to decide this question. However, we are conscious of the fact that against any Order passed by the State Commission dismissing a consumer dispute, the right of appeal is provided for, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, to the National Commission. When there was an effective alternative remedy available by preferring an Appeal, instead of availing the same, the writ petitioner has chosen the option of the certiorari jurisdiction of this Court, which is very limited. Further, the prayer in the writ petition also seeks the matter to be remitted back to the State Commission. In this view of the matter, we feel it appropriate not to determine the question as to whether, at least, the rate of interest as is payable to the monies parked in savings bank accounts by the banks, should be taken as a guiding principles and to award the same to the petitioner. For the aforesaid reasons, we consider it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent – State Commission in C.D.No.93 of 2000, dated 27-02-2001, and remit the matter back for fresh consideration by it, duly providing an opportunity to both sides to lead evidence considered appropriate and relevant by them. It is needless for us to observe that no observations made by us during the course of this Order would be treated as a pronouncement of any final opinion on the rights and obligations of either of the parties. With this, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated supra. No costs. ----------------------- -- GHULAM MOHAMMED, J --------------------------------- Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J Mrk/knk 19th March 2010