State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shriman Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd. & ... vs Shri Atmaram Pandurang Bobade on 13 January, 2012
C-169/2009
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA,
MUMBAI
First Appeal No. A/09/166
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/12/2008 in Case
No. 159/2007 of District Pune)
1.Shriman Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Through its Chief Executive Officer Shri. Y. B. Bhosale, Reg. off. at Mudhoji Manmohan Rajwada Campus, Phaltan, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara, Maharastra
2. The Manager, Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Branch at Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. SHRI ATMARAM PANDURANG BOBADE AT KARHATI, TAL BARAMATI, DISTRICT PUNE Maharastra ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/09/167 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/12/2008 in Case No. 160/07 of District Pune)
1. Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd Through its Chief Executive Officer Shri. Y. B. Bhosale, Reg. off. At Mudhoji Manmohan Rajwada Campus Phaltan, Taluka Phaltan, District Satara.
Maharastra
2. The Manager, Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Branch at Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, Maharashtra ........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Miss. Sonali Atmaram Bobade R/at. Karhati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune, Maharastra ........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/09/168 (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/12/2008 in Case No. 161/07 of District Pune)
1. Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Through its Chief Executive Officer Shri. Y. B. Bhosale, Reg. off. at Mudhoji Manmohan Rajwada Campus Phaltan, Taluka - Phaltan, District Satara.
Maharastra
2. The Manager, Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Ltd.
Branch at Baramati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune Maharashtra ...........Appellant(s) Versus
1. Mrs. Asha Jayant Pisal R/at Karhati, Taluka Baramati, District Pune Maharastra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode PRESIDING MEMBER Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde MEMBER PRESENT:
Mr.U.B. Wavikar, Advocate for the Appellants.
Mr.Hrushikesh Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent.
O R D E R Per Shri S.R. Khanzode Honble Presiding Judicial Member:(1)
These three appeals are heard together and disposed of by this common order with the consent of both the parties since they involved identical and similar facts and common question of law.(2)
Appeal No.166/2009 arose out of order dated 30.12.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.159/2007, Atmaram Pandurang Bobade V/s. Shrimant Malojirao Sahakari Bank Ltd., Phaltan, District Satara & Anr., passed by the Additional Pune District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (the Forum in short).(3)
Appeal No.167/2009 arose out of order dated 30.12.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.160/2007, Ms.Sonali Atmaram Bobade V/s. Shrimant Malojirao Sahakari Bank Ltd., Phaltan, District Satara & Anr., passed by the Forum.(4)
Appeal No.168/2009 arose out of order dated 30.12.2008 passed in Consumer Complaint No.161/2007, Ms.Asha Jayant Pisal V/s. Shrimant Malojirao Sahakari Bank Ltd., Phaltan, District Satara & Anr., passed by the Forum.(5)
All these three matters referred to alleged deficiency in service on the part of Appellant/original Opponent No.1 Shrimant Malojirao Sahakari Bank Ltd., Phaltan, District Satara (hereinafter referred to as the Bank for brevity) for not refunding the amounts of deposit kept with it by respective Complainants, viz.Atmaram Pandurang Bobade, Sonali Atmaram Bobade and Ms.Asha Jayant Bobade, which they asked for premature encashment. The Forum upheld the contention of all the three Complainants and directed the Bank to refund those deposits along with aggregate interest @10% per annum and also awarded costs of Rs.2,000/- in each matter.
Feeling aggrieved thereby the Bank and its Manager of Baramati Branch, who was Opponent No.2 in the original consumer complaint preferred these appeals.(6)
Heard both sides, perused the record. It may mention here that the respective deposits standing in the name of respective Complainants and the deposit receipts issued accordingly are not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that all these deposits were to get matured on or before 18.09.2008. It is also not disputed that by tendering the original deposit receipts, the Respective Complainants by their written requests asked the premature encashment of those deposits. It is also not disputed that the Bank refused to honour their requests.(7)
According to Bank, the deposits in question are perhaps benami transactions in the name of Complainants in respect of their respective fixed deposit receipts. The deposit is of Hanumant Govind Chandgude who got it re-fixed in the name of the respective Complainants for the amount mentioned in their respective fixed deposit receipts. Said Hanumant Govind Chandgude had taken a loan from the Bank. The Complainants consented to give the fixed deposit receipts standing in their respective names as security for the said overdraft/loan taken by said Hanumant Govind Chandgude. In the circumstances, since the amount of overdraft/loan of Hanumant Govind Chandgude is outstanding, the Complainants cannot ask for premature encashment of the deposit receipts which are standing in their respective names. Collusion is also alleged between the said Hanumant Govind Chandgude and respective Complainants. With these submissions the Bank asked for dismissal of the complaint. Arguments on these lines are advanced before us by the Appellants.(8)
Since the deposit receipts admittedly stand in the name of respective Complainants, if the Bank wants to allege something else against these documents it is for the Bank to establish their such case. They miserably failed to do so. The affidavits in evidence of their authorized signatory or authorized official Ajit Shinde dated 07.01.2008 neither establishes any such case to disclose the documents i.e. Fixed Deposit Receipts nor it establishes any case of alleged consent by respective Complainants to pledge their respective deposit receipts for a loan/overdraft taken by Hanumant Govind Chandgude. In his Affidavit Ajit Shinde only makes a reference that alleged consent of respective Complainants is witnessed by documents but it does not speak anything about the proof of said document or that said document is executed in his presence. Said document, copy of which is produced on record, it is dated 04.11.2003. The signatures thereon, per se, do not tally with the signatures of the respective Complainants. Besides that, since case of the Bank is solely based upon this document, they ought to have established it by tendering proper evidence as per the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and which they miserably failed to do so. In the circumstances, once the case of the Bank about Complainants pledging their respective deposit receipts for a loan taken by Hanumant Govind Chandgude is not established; the Bank has no lien over the fixed deposits in question.
Therefore, the Bank was under obligation to honour the requests of respective Complainants for the premature encashment of their respective deposit receipts and to make payment thereof to the respective Complainants. Since, Bank failed to discharge their said contractual obligation, the deficiency in service on the part of the Bank is well established. In this background, the impugned orders passed in respective Consumer Complaints which are subject matters of these appeals, cannot be faulted with. We find the appeals devoid of any substance and holding accordingly, pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal Nos.(1)166/2009, (2)167/2009 and (3)168/2009 stand dismissed.
(ii) In the given circumstances, both parties to bear their own costs.
(iii) Copies be given to the parties, as per the rules.
Pronounced on 13th January, 2012.
[Hon'ble Mr. S.R. Khanzode] PRESIDING MEMBER [Hon'ble Mr. Narendra Kawde] MEMBER ep