State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahak Chopra vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce on 8 August, 2023
FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023
IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Date of Institution: 30.05.2015
Date of hearing: 18.01.2023
Date of Decision: 08.08.2023
FIRST APPEAL NO.- 295/2015
IN THE MATTER OF
MS.MEHAK CHOPRA
W/O MR. ANMOL
R/O D-12/39 FF SECTOR-07
ROHINI, DELHI-110085
(Through : Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate)
... Appellant
VERSUS
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/PRINCIPAL OFFICER,
ND BLOCK, PITAM PURA
DELHI
(Through: Ajay Dabas and Associates, Advocates)
... Respondent
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 1 OF 8
FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023
CORAM:
HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
(PRESIDENT)
HON'BLE MS. PINKI, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)
Present: Mr. Nitin Sharma, Counsel for the Appellant.
None for the Respondent.
PER: HON'BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
PRESIDENT
JUDGMENT
1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are:
"The case of the complainant is that she was a minor and his father who had expired on 11.04.1996. A fixed deposit was made in the sum of Rs.1,15,000/- vide Account No.502330300350080 out of the estate left behind by her father. At that time, the complainant was minor, her date of birth being 21.08.1990. The complainant approached the OP but it failed to repay the amount. It is alleged that the complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP but nothing has been done. These facts, the complainant prays that the OP be directed to refund the amount along with comention and cost of litigation.
2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 05.05.2015, whereby it held as under:
"We have heard Ld. Counsel for the complainant. During the course of arguments, he has placed on record reply to the notice dated 30.02.2015. As per the reply, FDR No. 502330300350080 was made under the guardianship She withdrew of Smt. Tirlochan Chopra, mother of the complainant. Rs.5,73,000/- under the policy prematurely on 22.06.2011 which was credited PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 2 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023 to the account No.00000232010025820 in the name of Ms. Tirlochan Chopra with the complainant due to non availability of date of birth of the complainant and no information of attainment of majority was given to the OP.
From the material on record, it is clear that the amount under the policy was prematurely withdrawn by Smt. Tirlochan Chopra, guardian and mother of the complainant. It is, therefore, clear that the cause of action has arisen on 22.06.2011 when Smt. Tirlochan Chopra mother of the complainant had withdrawn the amount in the FDR prematurely. The amount was deposited in her account. The complaint has been filed now after a lapse of nearly four years from the date cause of action which has arisen on 22.06.2011. No application for condoning the delay has been filed by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant.
Even otherwise, the fixed deposit was made by father/mother of the complainant when she was minor as guardian. The amount was withdrawn by the guardian. Therefore the payment has been made to the Guardian. The OP bank discharged its liability. This forum is not a civil court where disputed question of legality can be decided by this Forum. It is a proper subject matter of the civil court. The complaint is therefore not maintainable before this Forum and the same is hereby dismissed."
3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the District Commission, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the District Commission has wrongly held that the said amount as lying with the Respondent and belonging to the Appellant, was released to Ms. Tirlochan Chopra who is the guardian of the Appellant. It is further submitted that after attaining the age of majority i.e. on 21.08.2008, Ms. Tirlochan Chopra does not remain the guardian of the Appellant and therefore she has got no right to ask for release of payment to the Respondent on the pretext of being the guardian of the Appellant. Secondly, it is submitted that PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 3 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023 the Respondent-Bank has not chosen to call the holder of the FDR or to call for the proof of the Appellant's age/date of birth before releasing the FDR amount. Thirdly, it is submitted that the Appellant sought information in respect of the FDR from the Respondent-Bank vide letter dated 27.02.2014 which was duly received by the Respondent-Bank by hand on the same date however, no reply was given by the Respondent-Bank. Thereafter, the Appellant was constrained to sent legal notice dated 25.03.2015 to which the Respondent-Bank replied vide its reply dated 30.04.2015 received by the Appellant on 01.05.2015. Therefore, it is submitted that the Appellant got to know about the release of the FDR amount only after receipt of the reply dated 30.04.2015 given by the Respondent-Bank. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Appellant has prayed for setting aside the Impugned Order.
4. The Respondent-Bank has filed its reply and has stated therein that as per the records the Appellant attained the age of majority in the year 2008. However, the said fact was never brought to the knowledge of the Respondent-Bank deliberately in active connivance with her mother. It is further submitted that the Appellant at the outset is barred by time as she attained majority in the year 2008, however till 2014 she never chose to approach the Respondent-Bank and later tried to extend the limitation by writing frivolous letters/notices. Pressing the aforesaid contentions, the Respondent-Bank has prayed that the present Appeal be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. We have perused the Appeal, Reply of the Respondent, the District Commission record and the Impugned Judgment.
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 4 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023
6. The first question that falls for our consideration is whether the Appellant is barred by time.
7. A perusal of the record discloses that the FDR was made in favour of the Appellant vide account n0.502330300350080 for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- in the year 1996 out of the estate left behind by her father. It is to be noted that since the Appellant was a minor at the point of time, the said FDR was made in the name of the Appellant under the guardianship of her mother Ms.Tirlochan Chopra . It is not disputed that the Appellant attained the age of majority on 21.08.2008. It is also not in dispute that the said FDR was prematurely withdrawn by the Appellant's mother in the year 2011 and the entire amount of the FDR was transferred in her account on 22.06.2011.
8. A perusal of the record discloses that the Appellant sought information regarding the FDR vide letter dated 27.02.2014 to which no reply was given by the Respondent-Bank. Thereafter, the Appellant sent legal notice dated 25.03.2015 to which the Respondent bank replied vide letter dated 30.04.2015. It is pertinent to note here that the amount has been released in favour of the Appellant's mother prematurely. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that the Appellant had prior knowledge that the amount has been already released in favour of her mother before the maturity date. It is to be noted further that the Appellant only got to know that the amount has been released prematurely vide reply of the Respondent-Bank dated 30.04.2015 bank. The record discloses that the Complaint had already been filed before the District Commission on 29.04.2015. Therefore, the cause of action arose on 30.04.2015 and as such the Complaint had already been filed by PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 5 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023 that time. Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion we conclude that the Complaint was filed within time and it cannot be said that the Appellant/Complainant was barred by time.
9. The main question that falls for our consideration is whether the Respondent-Bank is liable for deficiency in service and dereliction of duty.
10. Here, we deem it appropriate to reproduce para 8 of the Respondent's reply hereunder as:
"8. That the contents of para under reply are matter of record. However, the Respondent Bank had already released the entire amount upon the request of the guardian of the Appellant and the same was duly credited in her account. Further, the Appellant as per records attained majority in the year 2008 however the said fact was never brought in the knowledge of the Respondent Bank deliberately and intentionally by the Appellant in active connivance with her mother. It is also submitted that the mother of the Appellant in the year 2011 approached the Respondent Bank and prematurely withdrew the fixed deposit and she being the account holder/natural guardian was duly allowed the same and the entire amount of the fixed deposit was transferred in her account and the said fact is duly admitted by the Appellant."
PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 6 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023
11. It is to be noted that the Respondent-bank in its reply has admitted that the amount in the FDR has been prematurely released in favour of the Appellant's mother. It is further admitted that the amount was released 3 years after the Appellant attained majority. Here it is to be noted that the Appellant attained majority in the year 2008 and thereafter Ms.Trilochan Chopra does not remain the guardian of the Appellant and therefore, no longer holds the right to ask the Respondent-Bank to release the amount in her favour. The Respondent-Bank without making any enquiries as to the status of the FDR holder and without any inspection of the records released the amount in favour of the Appellant's mother, who was no longer authorized to manage her FDR account. It is to be noted further that the Respondent-Bank did not even care to call for the holder of the FDR account nor any effort was made to confirm the date of birth of the account holder, thus committing an act of gross negligence and dereliction of duty. It is a matter of fact that the FDR was made in the year 1996 and the amount was released in 2011 i.e. after 15 years, yet the Respondent-Bank assumed a careless attitude and released the amount to a person no longer authorised to manage the said account. In our view, the Respondent-Bank is liable for providing deficient services to the Appellant.
12. However, it is to be noted that the FDR amount has already been released in favour of the Appellant's mother. Thus, the Appellant is at liberty to seek remedy before the appropriate forum for refund of the principal amount in her favour in respect of the F.D.R No. 50233030035080. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, we set aside the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the District PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 7 OF 8 FA/295/2015 MS.MEHAK CHOPRA VS ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DOD.:08.08.2023 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North-West, Delhi. Consequently, the present Appeal No.295/2015 stands partly allowed and the Respondent is directed to pay to the Appellant :
A. Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental agony caused to the Appellant at the hands of Respondent. B. Rs.25,000/- towards legal and other miscellaneous expenses incurred by the Appellant
13. Being guided by the principles as discussed above, in case the Respondent fails to pay the entire amount as mentioned in para 12 of this judgment on or before 08.09.2023 (i.e. within one month from the date of the present judgment), the entire amount is to be paid alongwith simple interest @ 6% p.a. calculated from 08.08.2023 till the actual realization of the amount.
14. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
(JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL) PRESIDENT (PINKI) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Pronounced On:
08.08.2023 PARTLY ALLOWED PAGE 8 OF 8