State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Central Bank Of India vs Wg. Cdr. K.C. Vaid (Retd.) on 11 May, 2017
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI
(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)
Date of Decision: 11.05.2017
First Appeal- 23/2014
(Arising out of the order dated 01.10.2013 passed in Complainant Case No.
301/12 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas
Bhawan, New Delhi)
The Branch Manager,
Central Bank of India,
Airforce Station Branch,
New Delhi-110003.
.....Appellant
Versus
WG CDR K.C. Vaid (Retd.),
A-99, Sector-21, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh.
.....Respondent
CORAM
Justice Veena Birbal, President
Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
Justice Veena Birbal, President
1. This is an appeal wherein challenge is made to order dated 1.10.13 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (VI), Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in CC No.301/12 whereby the aforesaid complaint has been allowed.
Page 1 of 9
2. Briefly the facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he holds pension account bearing No. SB 1204321958 with appellant/OP. On 27.2.97, he had taken FDR bearing No.211/395 of Rs.70,000/- for a period of 46 days from the appellant/OP. It was alleged that due to temporary memory loss, he forgot to take payment and in December, 2009 he found the original fixed deposit receipt and contacted appellant/OP for encashment of FDR. He had visited the concerned branch of appellant/OP number of times but no payment was given to him. Finding no action on the part of the appellant/OP, he filed a complaint before the District Forum praying for release of deposited amount of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. as per bank policy and 18% interest after 10th April, 2010 and had also prayed for compensation of Rs.1 lac for causing harassment to him.
3. The complaint was opposed by appellant/OP wherein it was alleged that the complaint filed was not maintainable as it was time barred and no application under Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the respondent/complainant. It was admitted that the aforesaid FDR of Rs.70,000/- was issued on 27.2.97 for a period of 46 days. However, no medical record was filed by the respondent/complainant regarding alleged memory loss. It was stated Page 2 of 9 that FDR was only for a period of 46 days and nobody could forget in usual course, as was alleged. It was alleged that as per bank policy, if account holder had lost the FDR, amount could be credited in his account by giving a formal application stating that he had lost the FDR. It was alleged that in the present case, one indemnity letter was found for release of FDR of Rs.70,000/- having matured on 14.4.97. As per alleged indemnity letter, the respondent/complainant had approached the bank before completion of 46 days and requested that the FDR was lost and amount be credited in his favour. It was alleged that the respondent/complainant had already taken the FDR amount in the year 1997 and the complaint was filed after a period of 15 years when he found the original FDR. It was alleged that appellant/OP had asked the respondent/complainant to furnish the old passbooks from February, 1997 up till date but he did not produce the same. It was alleged that in normal course of action, the appellant/OP preserve the record for the last 8 years i.e. for the FDR in question, the record was available with the bank up to 2004-2005. It was alleged that the FDR had been encashed by the respondent/complainant in the year 1997 itself and he was not entitled for any amount and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder was filed by the respondent/complainant wherein allegations made in the written statement were denied and the averments made in the complaint were reiterated. Page 3 of 9
5. Both the parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/OP to pay Rs.70,000/- with interest on FD as applicable from time to time for the last 15 years as per RBI guidelines and also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- for harassment and agony.
7. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, present appeal is filed by appellant/OP.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has contended that complaint filed by the respondent/complainant was barred by limitation. It is contended that the maturity date of FDR was 14.4.97 whereas the complaint was filed after a period of more than 12 years without there being any application under Section 24A of the Act seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that Ld. District Forum has not dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the matter. It is further contended that even on merits, the decision of Ld. District Forum is wrong. It is contended that the respondent/complainant had approached the appellant/OP on completion of period of maturity of FDR and stated that the original FDR was untraceable and filed an Indemnity Bond for issuing duplicate FDR. The appellant/OP bank had issued a duplicate FDR in lieu of lost FDR on filing of Indemnity Bond. Subsequently the respondent/complainant had taken the maturity of the said FDR with interest. It is contended that the Page 4 of 9 respondent/complainant is a regular customer and draws his monthly pension through the bank regularly and it cannot be said that he forgot to take payment of FDR due to alleged memory loss. It is contended that appellant/OP is a public sector bank and its accounts are audited by the auditors and no unclaimed FDR was found in the bank. It is further contended that the record pertaining to the FDR is not available as appellant/OP is supposed to preserve record only for 10 years and for that Ld. Counsel has relied upon RBI guidelines. Ld. Counsel has prayed that impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.
9. On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that memory loss was not due to any ailment. By memory loss, respondent/complainant means that he forgot to encash the fixed deposit receipt. It is further contended that the District Forum has considered the material on record and thereafter has passed the impugned order and there is no illegality in the same.
10. We have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record.
11. On the maintainability of the complaint, ld. Counsel for the appellant/OP has argued that complaint was time barred as it was filed after a period of 12 years from the date of maturity of FDR. Ld. Counsel has relied upon State Bank of India v. B.S. Agriculture Industries (I), II (2009) CPJ 29 (SC) and Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Page 5 of 9 Co. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., III (2009) CPJ 75 (SC). We have gone through the aforesaid judgments. The same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as such are not discussed herewith. The present case relates to maturity proceeds of FDR. In such cases, cause of action is of continuing nature till consumer gets the money back. Reliance is placed on the judgment of National Commission in State Bank of Patiala v. Ram Kishan & Anr., III (2013) CPJ 511 (NC) and Hem Lata v. Rollatainers Ltd., Appeal No.267 of 2007 decided by this Commission on 30.05.2007. The objection of ld. counsel for appellant/OP that t he complaint was time barred is rejected.
12. On merits, it is admitted position that respondent/complainant is an old customer of appellant/OP and is maintaining account with it for past many years. Even prior to the issue of the FDR, he had been regularly drawing his pension from the said bank and is still withdrawing the same from the account maintained with appellant/OP. As on date, the original FDR of Rs.70,000/- dated 27.02.1997 is in possession of the respondent/complainant. Its genuineness is not challenged by the appellant/OP. The stand of the appellant/OP in the appeal is that the aforesaid FDR was for a period of 46 days and on its maturity, the respondent/complainant had approached the bank and stated that original FDR had been lost and filed an indemnity letter for issue of Page 6 of 9 duplicate FDR. The duplicate FDR was issued to him and subsequently the respondent/complainant had taken the maturity value of the FDR with interest. The relevant para of the appeal taking aforesaid stand is reproduced as under:
"That in between Complainant had approached the bank on completion of period of maturity of FDR and stated that the original FDR is untraceable and filed an Indemnity Bond for issuing of duplicate FDR. The bank had issued a duplicate FDR in lieu of lost FDR on filing of Indemnity Bond. Subsequently the Complainant had taken the maturity of the said FDR with interest."
13. In written statement filed before District Forum, the stand taken is that the respondent/complainant had approached the appellant/OP for the FDR before completion of 46 days and stated that FDR was lost and requested that the amount be credited in his favour. In further para of written statement, it is stated that amount of FDR was credited in the account of respondent/complainant. The relevant para of written statement is reproduced as under:
"---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------one indemnity letter was found for release of FDR sum of Rs.70,000/- matured on 14.04.1997, which shows that complainant has approached the respondent bank before completion of 46 days and requested that such FDR was lost and amount be credited in favour of the complainant."Page 7 of 9
14. As per stand taken in written statement, appellant/OP is alleging that FDR proceeds were credited to the account of respondent/complainant. On the other hand as per stand taken in appeal, it is alleged that duplicate receipt was first issued and thereafter the proceeds were credited in the account of respondent/complainant. There is a variation in both the stands which is material in nature as such the same is not believable. Further same is also not supported with any cogent evidence, except one Indemnity Bond which is undated and unsigned which is of no help to appellant/OP. The stand of appellant/OP for non-production of record relating to FDR is that the appellant/OP is liable to maintain the records for 10 years. The appellant/OP has relied upon document dated 29.07.2013 relating to "Disposal of Records". We have perused the same. The relevant para of the same is as under:
"Records to be preserved for a period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding the current calendar year (Corporate Office, ZO, RO, Branch and all other Offices)
1. Current Savings, TD, RD, Cash Certificates, Fixed, Short, Special term, Call Deposit Registers.
2. ..........................................................................
..........................................................................
14. Slips, Cheques and voucher relating to MTs, DDs, TTs, FDs and all other deposits, loans- overdrafts bills etc."
15. ................................................................... ....." Page 8 of 9
15. In the aforesaid document dated 29.07.2013 under the heading "Records to be preserved permanently (Corporate office, ZO, RO, Branch and all other offices), Sr. No.45 pertains to Indemnity Bond which means record relating to Indemnity Bond is to be preserved permanently. Had the respondent/complainant taken the FDR amount on furnishing Indemnity Bond as is alleged, in that event appellant/OP was supposed to produce the duly signed Indemnity Bond bearing signature of respondent/complainant which is not done by it. In these circumstances it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant had taken the maturity proceeds of FDR as is alleged.
16. In view of above discussion, we find no error or illegality in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission. Appeal stands dismissed.
17. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirement be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum. The record of the District Forum be also sent back forthwith. Thereafter, the file be consigned to Record Room.
(Justice Veena Birbal) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri Page 9 of 9