National Consumer Disputes Redressal
State Bank Of India vs Ram Sagar Rai & Anr on 27 April, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3063 OF 2010 (Against the Order dated 01/06/2010 in Appeal No. 715/2009 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. STATE BANK OF INDIA Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Estate, Bhilai Durg - 490026 Chhattisgarh ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAM SAGAR RAI & ANR R/o: Naka Para Nandini Road, Jamul, Post Jamul (A.C.C.), Thana Jamul, Tehsil & District Durg Durg Chhattisgarh 2. SMT. BACHHI DEVI, W/O. RAM SAGAR RAI R/o: Naka Para Nandini Road, Jamul, Post Jamul (A.C.C.), Thana Jamul, Tehsil & District Durg Durg Chhattisgarh ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Shri Arjun Gupta, proxy for
Shri S.L. Gupta, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri B.S. Sharma, Adv.
Dated : 27 Apr 2015 ORDER
Pronounced on 27th April,2015
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 9.12.2009 passed by State Commission in Appeal No. 715 of 2009- Ramsagar Rai & Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India,; by which while allowing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was set aside.
Brief facts of the case are that on 11.1.2001, complainant/ respondent deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash with opposite party/ petitioner for fixed deposit for a period of 3 years. Opposite party prepared FDR showing maturity date as 11.1.2004 and handed over to the complainant. When complainant approached opposite party on maturity date, opposite party apprised that FDR is of no value and no amount will be paid against it. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite party resisted complaint and submitted that complainants were having a savings bank account No. 01190/011570 and on 11.1.2001 amount of Rs. 50,000/- was not deposited in cash by complainants, but instruction was given to withdraw that amount from savings bank account for the purpose of depositing the amount in the Fixed Deposit Account. The deposit slip was also signed by the complainant for that purpose and debit voucher was also signed. On the basis of these documents, command was given to the computer for withdrawal of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the savings bank account and crediting the same in the Fixed Deposit Account of the complainants and presuming that computer had obeyed the command, the FDR, was prepared and the same was delivered to the complainants, but, in fact, on account of some technical defect, computer failed to obey the command given and, so, no amount could be withdrawn from the saving account of the complainants nor it could be transferred to Fixed Deposit Account. As no amount was withdrawn from saving account or transferred in the Fixed Deposit Account, no mistake in the balancing amount of the Bank at the close of the day could be detected. When FDR was produced for encashment by the complainants, then the circumstances were explained to the complainants and thus, when no amount was received, then, no amount was payable against FDR and by not paying the amount, the respondent Bank has not committed deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint. Appeal filed by complainants was allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and opposite party was directed to pay maturity amount of FDR alongwith interest and was further directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation against which this revision petition has been filed.
Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that in spite of no proof of depositing Rs. 50,000/- in cash by complainants with opposite party, Learned State Commission committed error in allowing appeal only on the basis of FDR and Learned District Forum rightly dismissed complaint, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that order passed by Learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence, revision petition be dismissed.
Learned Counsel for petitioner submitted that FDR was to be prepared by transferring amount lying in complainant's account as per his request dated 11.1.2001 and FDR was prepared accordingly but as computer failed to obey command, amount was not transferred from his account to FDR A/c. FDR prepared by opposite party was without consideration. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that amount was deposited in cash and complainant was practically illiterate who could only put his signatures in Hindi and in such circumstance, no reliance can be placed on pay-in-slip.
On enquiry, Learned Counsel for respondent submitted that respondent does not possess any deposit slip showing Rs. 50,000/- deposited by complainant with opposite party in cash on 11.1.2001. On the contrary, Cashier's Receipt Scroll of 11.1.2001 does not show any entry of Rs. 50,000/- and in such circumstances, only on the basis of affidavit filed by complainant, it cannot be presumed that complainant deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash with opposite party on 11.1.2001 for preparation of FDR for a period of 3 years particularly in the light of pay-in-slip signed by complainant. Perusal of pay-in-slip dated 11.1.2001 clearly reveals that as per this slip, Rs. 50,000/- were to be transferred for preparing FDR from complainant's saving bank account No. 01190011570. Admittedly, complainant's saving bank account had balance of Rs. 64,557.41 on 1.1.2001 and this amount was not reduced by Rs. 50,000/-. Thus, it appears that on account of failure to obey command by computer, amount of Rs. 50,000/- lying in complainant's account was not transferred for preparation of FDR and FDR was prepared and signed under the impression that Rs. 50,000/- lying in the complainant's account had been debited and transferred for preparation of term deposit receipt. Perusal of record further reveals that complainant on 24.4.2001, again requested for preparation of FDR of Rs. 50,000/- from his aforesaid account by signing pay-in-slip and FDR was prepared on that date and this amount has been reflected in his aforesaid saving bank account. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that as complainant was illiterate, pay-in-slip dated 11.1.2001 signed by him cannot be relied upon. Complainant was well aware that he approached opposite party for preparation of FDR of Rs. 50,000/- for a period of 3 years from the amount lying in his bank account and he never deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash with the opposite party.
Learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint only on the basis of FDR which was without consideration and in such circumstances, impugned order is liable to modification.
It is admitted case of petitioner that on account of failure to obey command by the computer, amount lying in complainant's saving bank A/c, could not be transferred to FDR A/c but by assuming that amount has been transferred, FDR was prepared. This clearly proves deficiency in service on the part of petitioner in preparing FDR for a period of 3 years without checking whether amount stood transferred from complainant's saving bank A/c to FDR A/c or not which gave birth to litigation which has travelled right up to this Commission. Not only this, complainant also suffered loss of interest. Had FDR been prepared on 11.1.2001, he would have received interest on Rs. 50,000/- from that date @ 10% p.a. whereas he got interest on this amount till preparation of next FDR on 24.4.2001 only at the rate admissible in saving bank A/c which should be, apparently, 3% to 4% p.a. In such circumstances, complainant is entitled for some compensation on account of deficiencies in service on the part of petitioner.
In the light of above discussion, I deem it appropriate to grant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to respondent for deficiencies on the part of petitioner and impugned order allowing refund of maturity amount is set aside.
Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is partly allowed and order dated 9.12.2009 passed by Learned State Commission in Appeal No. 715 of 2009- Ramsagar Rai & Anr. Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India; is partly set aside and petitioner is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- to respondent on account of deficiency in service within four weeks of receipt of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.
-sd/-
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER