National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Union Bank Of India vs Devinder Kumar on 16 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ126(NC)
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. 1187 of 1999 preferred against the order dated 20.9.99 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridkot.
2. Complaint was filed by the respondent, inter alia, alleging that he purchased FDR of Rs. 8,700/- on 9.3.79. 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 filling of complaint for release of the amount of 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 was asserted that the respondent had not kept the FDR under lien nor had he connection with any Malhotra's. After FDR was renewed on 15.5.80 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 filling written version. It was admitted that FDR for Rs 8,700/- was taken by the respondent on 9.3.79 and it was got renewed for one year on 15.5.1980. It was, however, alleged that complaint was barred by limitation, that FDR in question was kept by the respondent under lien towards guarantee issued in favour of Excise Commission, Delhi on behalf of M/s. Ramji Das & Company in the year 1978 and during continuance of lien over the FDR, the complainant was not entitled to claim principal amount as also interest thereon.
5. By aforesaid order dated 20.9.99, the petitioner was directed to any the amount of 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 Shri Hemant Chaudhuri, whom we heard on point of admission, was that the FDR in question was kept by the respondent under lien with the petitioner-bank towards guarantee issued by it on behalf of M/s. Ramji Dass & Company in the year 1978 and as that lien still subsists, the respondent is not entitled to the refund of principal amount as also interest. Submission is, however, without any merit. There is no dispute that FDR in question was taken by the respondent on 9.3.1979. How a lien could be created in favour of petitioner bank in 1978 in respect of FDR taken out subsequently on 9.3.1979. Further, copy of judgment dated 20.9.99 placed on the file would show that it was even conceded by the Counsel of petitioner before the District Forum that lien of FDR in question had not been proved by petitioner Bank. Thus, assuming that there is sufficient reason to condone delay in filing the petition, aforesaid orders does not call for interference in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
7. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed being without any merit.