National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Samar Roy Choudhury on 31 January, 2022
Author: R.K. Agrawal
Bench: R.K. Agrawal
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3024 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 29/05/2014 in Appeal No. 324/2013 of the State Commission West Bengal) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA TOLLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD BRANCH, 43A, TOLLYGUNGE CIRCULAR ROAD, P.S BEHALA KOLKATA - 700053 W.B ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. SAMAR ROY CHOUDHURY S/O LATE KHAGENDRA NATH ROY CHOUDHURY, 7 HARIDAS DAW ROAD, P.O BEHALA, KOLKATA - 700053 W.B ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. AGRAWAL,PRESIDENT HON'BLE DR. S.M. KANTIKAR,MEMBER For the Petitioner : For the Petitioner : Ms. Deblina Lahiri, Advocate For the Respondent : For the Respondent : Mr. Barun Prasad, Advocate Mr. Sovanlal Bera, Advocate Mr. Samar Roy Choudhary, In person Dated : 31 Jan 2022 ORDER Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No.324/2013, whereby the State Commission while partly allowing the Appeal filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP Bank), modified the Order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Judges Court, Alipore, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') by directing the OP Bank to refund to the Complainant a sum of ₹8,22,762/- with interest @ 9.75% p.a. w.e.f.17-03-2007 till realisation along with compensation of ₹30,000/- and costs of ₹10,000/- with the rider that the said amounts shall be paid by the OP Bank to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order failing which the amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realisation.
Concisely narrated, the facts leading to the filing of the Complaint are that the Complainant and his wife were having two fixed deposits, i.e.,TDcs0495619 and TDcs0495621, both having the date of deposit as 17.03.2007 and date of maturity as 17.03.2011. The Principal amounts invested were ₹54,425/- and ₹5,59,668/- and the maturity amounts were ₹81,480/- and ₹8,22,762/- respectively. The Complainant had taken a demand loan in January, 2009 from the OP Bank by pledging three Fixed Deposit Certificates including the two in question; however, subsequently, the same were returned to the Complainant on repayment of the loan amount. On maturity of the said two Fixed Deposit Certificates on 17.03.2011, when Complainant approached the OP Bank for renewal of the same, the OP Bank did not entertain the same on the plea that the FDRs have become inoperative, without explaining any reasons. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote letter dated 23.05.2011 to the Manager of the OP No.1 Bank apprising him of the incident and requesting him to transfer the maturity amount under the said certificates to the joint account of the Complainant and his wife as they were no more interested in renewal of the said Fixed Deposits. However, the Manager of the OP No.1 Bank gave an evasive and misleading reply to the letter of the Complainant stating that the said two fixed deposit accounts have been closed. Thereafter, the complainant wrote another letter dated 25.06.2011 to the General Manager of OP Bank, (herein after referred to as OP No.2) endorsing copies thereof to the Deputy General Manager of OP Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP No.3) also. The OP No.3 replied the letter of the Complainant and advised him that the Local Head Office, Kolkata of the State Bank of India will advise him in the matter. However, the said office failed to act in terms of the letter written by the OP No.3. The Complainant wrote another letter dated 14.10.2011 to the Chief General Manager of OP Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP No.4) explaining his grievance, but in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties/Petitioners, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum.
The OP Bank resisted the Complaint by filing their joint written version. It is contended that the Complainant opened fixed deposit account number 30145154500 in respect of receipt No.0495619 dated 17.03.2017 for ₹54,425/- and fixed deposit account number 30145154781 in respect of receipt No.0495621 dated 17.03.2017 for ₹5,59,668/-. That the fixed deposit receipt No.0495619 for ₹54,425/- was closed on 26.03.2011 for ₹80,026/- on maturity and renewed with one STDR for ₹80,026/- with maturity date as 01.10.2012. The FD Receipt No.0495621 was closed prematurely on 07.07.2008 and its proceeds ₹6,12,113/- were credited to the Savings Bank Account No. 10559521717 of the Complainant on 07.07.2008. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied. The Petitioner/OP Bank denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed dismissal of the complaint with compensation and costs, being not maintainable.
The District Forum, after perusing the pleadings, evidence and hearing the Parties observed that "The document filed from the side of the OPs showing pre-mature withdrawal of FD amount to the tune of ₹6,12,113/- is for the Receipt No. 0495623 and not for Receipt No. 0495621 as alleged by OPs in his Written Version. There is no convincing proof that the last two numbers 21 of the FD receipt is same and identical of FD Receipt No. 0495623. The OP Bank is supposed to render service to the Hon'ble Citizens of free India and it should mention all the things so that the people understand what the Bank is willing to say. The documents given from the Bank to its customers indicating that the same has been done. In the about circumstances we are unable to accept the said FD of Receipt No. 0495621 of ₹5,59,668/- was withdrawn pre-mature and allowed the Complaint by directing the OP Bank to refund the maturity amount of ₹9,04,602/- in respect of the two Fixed Deposit Certificates in question with interest @9.75% p.a. from 17.03.2011 till the date of Order of the District Forum. The OP Bank was further directed to pay compensation of ₹1,00,000/- to the Complainant. The aforesaid amounts were directed to be paid within one month failing which the entire amount was directed to be paid along with interest @10% p.a. from the date of default till realization. The OP Bank was given liberty to recover the amount of compensation and costs from the erring official.
Feeling aggrieved, the OP Bank filed First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission partly allowed the Appeal in the aforesaid manner by observing as under:-
"As regards the amount of ₹5,59,668/- the Bank has filed papers to show that the said amount was prematurely withdrawn and the amount payable was ₹6,12,113/- which was also received by the Complainant under his signature with the request to transfer the said amount to SB A/c No.10559521717. The amount was credited on 07/07/08 with the account of the Complainant as per the statement of Bank account filed by the Appellant. Therefore, it is clear that as regards amount of ₹5,59,668/- there was premature withdrawal, but on this point there is no specific pleading in the petition of Complaint.
But it appears, surprisingly, that there is Receipt No. 0495623 dated 17/03/07 under A/c No.30145154781 on the reverse of which the Complainant received premature withdrawal of ₹6,12,113/- and on the same date, that is, 17/03/07 under the same A/c No., Receipt No.0495621 was issued in respect of the same amount, that is ₹5,59,668/- in favour of the Complainant and his wife under the same account number. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant on this point has submitted that receipt bearing No.0495621 is disputed and it was an inadvertent error on the part of the Bank. We are unable to accept such contention of the Learned Counsel for the Appellant, in as much as, there is no explanation from the side of the Bank as to why on the same date, that is, 17/03/07 under the same account number two different receipts were issued. The Appellant Bank, therefore, could not succeed in establishing its case relating to the amount of ₹5,59,668/-, the maturity value of which is ₹8,22,762/- On this point circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Respondent is entitled to get refund of the matured value of the said amount and compensation of ₹30,000/- which would be sufficient with litigation cost of ₹10,000/-."
Being aggrieved by the Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the State Commission, the Opposite Parties/Petitioners had filed the present Revision Petition before us.
Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners/Opposite Parties submitted that the Respondent/Complainant and his wife approached the OP Bank and deposited ₹5,59,668/- in A/c No. 30145154781 for which FDR No. 0495621 was issued on 17.03.2007. The Respondent/Complainant claimed that he had not received the FDR, therefore, in good faith the OP Bank inadvertently issued another FDR No. 0495623. The two FDRs for the same account was inadvertently issued due to handling of the transaction by two bank officials on the same day but the voucher entry report maintained with the OP Bank shows only one entry of deposit of ₹5,59,668/-. On the request of the Respondent/Complainant, the Bank pre-maturely closed the account No. 30145154781 (FDR No.0495623) and deposited the amount of ₹6,12,113/- to the savings Bank A/c No. 10559521717. Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant approached the OP Bank for taking maturity value of FDR No. 0495621 against which FDR No. 0495623 was issued inadvertently and FDR No.0495623 was already got pre-matured amount credited in his account No. 30145154781. The District Forum and State Commission have passed a wrong Order and failed to appreciate that the Respondent/Complainant restrained from mentioning Account Number with regard to FDR in dispute whereas it is the Account Number and not the FDR which is crucial in determining any dispute regarding FDR. There can be more than one FDR but not more than one Account Number for a single transaction. There is only one credit transaction on 17.03.2007 in the Account No. 30145154781, therefore, it is wrong to allege that there was two FDRs in same account for the same amount on the same day. The Complainant/Respondent has filed the present complaint with the intention to take advantage of the issuance of double receipt issued by the Petitioner Bank. She prayed that the Orders passed by the Fora below be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.
Per contra, Mr. Samar Roy Choudhary, Respondent/Complainant, submitted that on or about 17.03.2007, he and his wife renewed two matured FD certificates of ₹5,59,668/- each by giving written instructions by endorsement on the back of the two matured certificate as a result two FDRs Nos. 0495621 and 0495623 were issued for a principal amount of ₹5,59,668/- each. In the year 2008 he submitted original FDR No. 0495623 for pre-mature withdrawal which was done by the OP Bank. In the year 2011, he and his wife submitted the remaining FDR No. 0495621 for further renewal but the OP Bank refused to do so on the following baseless grounds:-
FD No. 0495623 was issued inadvertently;
Respondent has fraudulently managed to obtain the FD Certificate.
The aforesaid FD Certificate has already been closed as the Respondent has taken the pre-matured value.
He further submitted that the above grounds are baseless as in reply to his representation through letter dated 23rd May, 2011 regarding refusal of maturity of FDR No.0495621, the OP Bank vide letter dated 06.06.2011 informed that the said Certificate has been closed and the Respondent was paid the pre-matured amount without verifying the number of the Certificate and realising the fact that the certificate in original was still lying with him. The allegation of the Bank that the Certificate is duplicate is baseless since for obtaining a duplicate certificate certain formalities are required such as, an application from the customer; lodging lost complaint with the local Police Station; advertisement in the local newspaper and Indemnity bond by the account holder is required. But in the case in hand, no such steps were taken by the Bank meaning thereby that the FDR in question is original and not duplicate. The argument of the OP Bank that the Complainant has committed fraud and FDR was issued by mistake is also baseless as the banking mistakes are traced out on the same day or maximum within a month when the balancing of books is done or at the time of annual audit. But in the instant case, the Bank has neither lodged any criminal complaint against him for committing fraud nor any such plea was taken by the Branch Manager of the OP Bank in his reply dated 06.06.2011. He relied upon Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pishora Singh (dead) through LRs vs. Bank of Punjab & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 216"
He also relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2011 11 SCC 269' and submitted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21(b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. He submitted that in the present case there is no such error in the Orders passed by the Fora below and as such concurrent finding of both the Fora below cannot be disturbed under the Revisional Jurisdiction and prayed that the Revision Petition be dismissed.
We have heard Ms. Deblina Lahiri, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the Respondent/Complainant in person.
From the perusal of the material available on record and also having given thoughtful consideration to the various pleas raised by the Parties, we are of the considered view that the present case is squarely covered by the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pishora Singh (dead) through LRs vs. Bank of Punjab & Ors. (2018) 13 SCC 216 in which it has been held as under:-
"... Assuming the FDR dated 8th March, 1996 was issued to the appellant fraudulently, it was all the more obligatory on the respondent-Bank to have taken action against its employees. As far as the appellant is concerned, the only document that he had in his possession and rightly so was the FDR issued to him by the respondent - Bank. The appellant cannot be expected to produce anything more than what is given to him by the Bank which is the FDR receipt itself..."
Even otherwise, in the present case there is concurrent finding of the fact that the FDR No. 0495621 of ₹5,59,668/- with maturity value of ₹8,22,762/-, was not prematurely withdrawn by the Complainant. We do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the State Commission warranting our interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.' [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] by observing as under:-
"9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. ....."
Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Pishora Singh (dead) through LRs (supra) and 'Sunil Kumar Maity (supra), we do not find any merit in the present Revision Petition and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 29.05.2014 passed by the State Commission is upheld. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
......................J R.K. AGRAWAL PRESIDENT ...................... DR. S.M. KANTIKAR MEMBER