National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Bank Of India vs Ajaib Kumar on 16 January, 2003
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Member)
1. This revision petition by the petitioner/opposite party No. 4 is directed against the order dated 15.10.2001 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dismissing Appeal No. 1188 of 1999 preferred against the order dated 20.9.1999 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
2. Complaint was filed by the respondent, inter alia, alleging that he purchased fixed deposit receipt for Rs. 21,600/- from the petitioner on 18.3.1978. Simultaneously, respondent opened a Saving Bank Account and issued specific instructions to petitioner-Bank that the interest accruing on FDR be credited in that account. FDR was got renewed for a period of one year on 15.5.1980. It was further alleged that respondent visited the Bank about an year before his filing of complaint for release of the amount of said FDR alongwith interest upto date but he was told that he had kept the FDR under lien with the Bank towards guarantee issued in favour of some Malhotra's of Faridkot. It is asserted that respondent had not kept the FDR under lien nor had he connection with any Malhotra's. After FDR was renewed on 15.5.1980, it was kept in the custody of petitioner. Respondent is entitled to the refund of the amount of FDR in question alongwith interest accruing thereon.
3. Alongwith petition the petitioner supported by the affidavit of A.K, Jain, Branch Manager of Faridkot Branch, filed application seeking condonation of delay of about nine months in filing the petition.
4. Petitioner contested the complaint by filing written version. It was admitted that FDR for Rs. 21,600/- was taken by the respondent on 18.3.1978 and same was got renewed for one year on 15.5.1980. It was, however, alleged that complaint is barred by limitation, that FDR was kept by the respondent under lien towards guarantee issued in favour of Excise Commissioner, Delhi on behalf of M/s. Ramji Das & Company in the year 1978 and during continuance of lien over the FDR, the respondent was not entitled to claim principal amount as also interest accruing thereon.
5. By aforesaid order dated 20.9.1999, the petitioner was directed to pay the amount of the FDR in question alongwith interest calculated on year-to-year basis within a month from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
6. Submission advanced by Mr. Hemant Chaudhari, whom we heard on point of admission, was that FDR in question was kept by the respondent under lien with petitioner-Bank towards guarantee issued by it on behalf of M/s. Ramji Dass & Company in the year 1978 and as that Hen still subsists, the respondent is not entitled to the refund of principal amount as also interest thereof. Copies of the orders dated 20.9.1999 and 15.10.2001 placed on record would show that both the District Forum and State Commission had found that FDR in question was not kept under lien towards guarantee issued in favour of Excise Commissioner, Delhi on behalf of M/s. Ramji Das & Company in the year 1980. We see no reason to differ with that concurrent finding of fact. Moreover, aforesaid order dated 20.9.1999 would indicate that it was even conceded by the Counsel of petitioner before the District Forum that lien of the FDR in question was not proved. Thus, assuming that there is sufficient reason to condone delay in filing the petition, aforesaid two orders do not call for inteference in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed being without any merit.