Judgment:
(Typed to the dictation of Sri K. Satyanand, Honble Member)
This is an appeal filed by the opposite party assailing the order of the District Forum imposing the liability corresponding to the reliefs prayed by the complainant.
The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:
A non resident couple by name Venkateswara Rao Anamolu and his wife, Sarojini Anamolu deposited an amount in US dollars by way of two deposits under FCNR RDB 3/79 and 1/79 with the opposite party bank, appellant on 29th December, 1979. Subsequently both of them died intestate on 31-5-1983 in a fire accident in the United States of America. The circuit court of Marion Country, West Virginia declared that the estate of the said V.R.Anamolu should devolve upon his mother, Smt.A.Sundramma. Later the said Sundramma also died on 25-4-1990 even before she got orders from the said court in the U.S. Subsequently the complainants 1 to 3 filed O.p.No.885/90 on the file of City Civil court, Hyderabad for probating the registered will dated 25-1-1990 executed by late Sundramma bequeathing all her estate to complainants 1 to 3. However, one A.Ramakoteswara Rao, the elder son of late Sundramma also filed OS 211/90 on the file of Subordinate court, Vijayawada for the partition of properties left by the said Sundramma making his brothers, sisters all the banks and others as parties. The said suit was transferred to City Civil court, Hyderabad for being tried along with the O.P. filed by complainants 1 to 3. The opposite party bank was a party to the said suit. Ultimately the II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decided the matters by a common judgement dated 28-7-2000. Both the matters were carried in appeal to the High Court by both parties to the extent they are aggrieved respectively. Ultimately on the intervention of the relatives, the matter was compromised and the High Court was pleased to pass a judgement dated 24-1-2002 in terms of the Compromise recorded by it. The opposite party herein was the 10th defendant in the said suit. As per the said Compromise decree passed by the High Court, the complainants 1 to 3 were entitled to half share in B schedule property among other properties. The said B schedule property was comprised of the bank deposits including the one we are concerned within the present consumer complaint. Likewise the 4th complainant too was held entitled to 1/4th share in the very said property viz bank deposits. In terms of the Compromise decree, the complainants claimed to have addressed letters to the opposite party bank for encashment of their share of the F.Ds. invested by Venkateswara Rao Anamolu. The bank remained silent till 6-2-2003. However on 6-2-2003, the complainants received a letter dated 4-2-2003 stating that the Regional Office had given permission to the O.P. branch to disburse an amount of Rs.2,60,711/- plus interest to all the heirs. No information was however given to the 4th complainant in this regard. Thereupon the complainants claimed to have issued a letter requiring the bank to give details and break up for the amount offered. According to them all these four complainants put together were entitled to US $ 6,065.44 cents as on the date of maturity i.e. as on 31-12-1989. The present complaint came to be filed questioning the proprietary of making an offer to pay in rupees instead of in dollars as also the unspecified interest which appeared to be lower than they were entitled to. These two things are sought to be projected as constituting deficiency and the prayer came to be tailored on those two propositions and in conformity thereof the complainants prayed for the amount in US $ as also future interest as per RBI rules from the date of maturity till the date of payment. Further they also prayed for compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- besides costs.
The opposite party resisted the claim chiefly contending inter-alia that the complaint was not at all maintainable and the bank was well within its rights to offer payment in rupees as with the death of the depositor, the fixed deposit assumes the nature of a mere rupee investment by the citizens. Likewise it also contended that the interest was calculated as per RBI rules.
In support of their case, the complainants filed affidavit of one of them and relied upon documents marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On the other hand, the opposite party relied upon documents marked as Exs.B1 and B2.
On a consideration of the evidence adduced, the District Forum upheld the claim and directed the opposite party to pay the amount however in Indian rupees at the prevailing dollar rate as on 29-12-1983 together with future interest at the rate of 12% p.a. as also compensation of Rs.10,000/- besides costs in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party filed the present appeal urging that the District Forum lacked jurisdiction in view of the terms of the Compromise recorded by the High court of Andhra Pradesh and in view of the fact that the matter should be taken to the appropriate executing court and not to the District Forum. They also urged that the interest at the rate of 12% was not tenable as the kind of investors as the present one was not entitled to such an interest. The District Forum applied its mind to the RBI circular instructing the banks that in the case of NRI deposits standing in the name of deceased depositors such deposits should be treated as domestic rupee deposits and interest should be paid commensurately.
Heard both sides. The points that arise for consideration are
1. Whether the consumer complaint as such is maintainable in view of the Compromise decree passed by the High Court.
2. Whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?
3. To what relief?
Some of the basic facts are not at all in dispute. Both parties-the complainants as also the opposite party-were parties to the previous civil litigation evidenced by Ex.A5. As a matter of fact, the foundation for agitating the rights of the complainants is totally ascribed to the Compromise decree passed by the High court marked as Ex.A5. For proper understanding of the basis upon which the complainants made an endeavor to put forth this claim, it is necessary to extract the Compromise term No.2 in the Compromise decree passed by the High Court and marked as Ex.A5. The said term 2 reads as under:
2. That the appellants herein who are the defendants 3, 13 and 14 in O.S.No.8/92 (i.e. petitioners in O.P.No.885/90) namely Vupppumalla Sarojini Devi, Dr.V.V.S.Chowdary an V.V.R.Prasad are entitled to half shares (50%) in B schedule properties (i.e. the deposits in Bank) in O.S.No.8/92. That the respondents 1 to 5, herein who are the plaintiff and defendants 1, 2 4 and 5 in O.S.No.8/92 namely, Anumolu Rama koteswara Rao, Anumolu Lajapati Rai, Boppana Baby Sampurna Devi, Gavrineni Rajya Lakshmi and Kuntamukkala Seshukumari are entitled to one equal share each in the remaining half (50%) of the share in B schedule properties (i.e. 10% each in B schedule) properties in O.S.No.8/92). The parties shall be entitled to execute the decree against the Banks either jointly or separately to the extent of their individual sharesâ.
It specifically prescribed that the party shall be entitled to execute the decree against the banks to the extent of their individual shares. A feeble attempt is however made to give this claim a different colour than mere execution of the rights against the bank. In order to substantiate this the claim of dollar payment and the enhanced rate of interest are sought to be cited as constituting new rights not within the contemplation of the term extracted above. But this argument is totally absurd. Those two questions are ancillary or concomitant or consequential to the principal right that remained vesting in favour of the complainants by virtue of the provisions of the Compromise decree. It is rather impermissible in law for the complainants to segregate the principal rights and the rights consequential thereto in order to fragment the cause of action and thereby take them to different fora. This is made very much clear by section 47 C.P.C. itself. The provisions of Sec.47(1) of C.P.C. read as follows:
47. Questions to be determined by the Court executing decree
(1) All questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit.
So when once the rights though ostensibly look like distinct are capable of being shown as the offshoots of the principal rights contemplated by the decree, any attempt to by-pass the procedure laid down by law would be definitely unacceptable. Section 47(`1) CPC rather debars any separate suit in respect of the rights that spring from a relief granted and amenable to execution in normal course. In this consumer complaint, the complainants actually resorted to such a course derogatory of the law which has already been set in motion by virtue of the civil litigation that had culminated in a Compromise decree. In this regard, it is worth remembering the provisions of Sec. 3 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 which are as follows:
Section 3 Act not in derogation of any other law.âThe provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
There can be no gain saying the fact that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 meticulously discourages overstepping or encroaching upon the jurisdiction of other fora unless the simultaneous jurisdiction is tolerable by virtue of the very nature of remedies. In the present case, there is a categorical observation in the very Compromise term itself made a rule of the court by the High court that the execution of the rights even against the bank will have to be worked out like any other execution of a civil decree. So this kind of detour into the consumer jurisdiction cannot be and should not be entertained. This is where the District Forum erred in readily assuming jurisdiction though the striking facts like the matter having sprung from a Compromise decree was very much brought to its notice. It is necessary for the Fora not to put itself in a collision course as against other jurisdiction and such conflict in this matter is very patent from Ex.A5 itself not to speak of Sec.47(1) of CPC. In these circumstances the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained,.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the district Forum and consequently dismissing the complaint before it. However there shall be no order as to costs in the circumstances of the case.