State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Sukhdev Singh Gill. vs Chief Manager, P.N.B. on 22 February, 2016
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
(1)
First Appeal No.221/ 2015
Date of Presentation: 09.11.2015
Date of Decision 22.02.2016
........................................................................
Sukh Dev Singh Gill,
Son of Shri Piara Singh Gill,
Resident of presently
Gill Avenue, Shimla Road, Nahan,
District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Nahan,
District Sirmour,
Himachal Pradesh.
.......... Respondent.
..........................................................................................
For the Appellant: In person.
For the Respondent: Mr. G.S.Rathore, Advocate.
..........................................................................................
AND
(2) First Appeal No.224/2015
Date of Presentation:10.11.2015
Date of Decision: 22.02.2015
..........................................................................................
The Chief Manager,
Punjab National Bank, Nahan,
District Sirmour,
Himachal Pradesh.
.......... Appellant.
Versus
Shri Sukh Dev Singh Gill,
Son of late Shri Piara Singh Gill,
Resident of presently
Gill Avenue, Shimla Road, Nahan,
District Sirmour, Himachal Pradesh.
.......... Respondent.
..........................................................................................
Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank
(F.A. No.221/2015)
&
Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill
(F.A. No.224/2015)
________________________________________________________________
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
Hon'ble Mr. Vijay Pal Khachi, Member
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. G.S.Rathore, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice Surjit Singh, President (Oral) By this common order we proceed to disposed of two appeals, one filed by the opposite party, i.e. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, in complaint No.2/2012, i.e. F.A. No.224/2015 and the other filed by complainant, in the said complaint, namely Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill, i.e. F.A. No. 221/2015.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of two appeals may be noticed. Complainant had made two fixed deposits with the respondent-bank. Deposits matured in the month of March, 1997, and the amount of maturity of both the deposits was 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? Page 2 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ `1,16,000/-. Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill, the complainant, as per averments made in the complaint, required the respondent to re-invest the money for a further period of five years. After sometime, appellant's mother, who was joint investor with him, left for her heavenly abode and in January, 1998, appellant approached the respondent for payment of contents of the renewed fixed deposit. He was allegedly told that fixed deposit receipts were not traceable. Finally, vide letter dated 25.09.2009, copy Annexure C-8, appellant was informed by the respondent that the amount of `1,16,502/-, payable on maturity of the initial two deposits, had been credited in his Saving Bank Account No.17952 (New No.0356000100179527) and that in that account a sum of `1,87,122/-, stood to his credit as on 31.08.2009.
3. Appellant then addressed a letter, copy Annexure C-10, to the respondent reporting that he Page 3 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ never opened any Saving Bank Account No.17952 old with the aforesaid new number and hence, there was no question of remittance of the contents of the fixed deposits in the said account and he demanded that he be paid the amount of fixed deposits with interest payable on fixed deposits, from time to time, as per circulars of the bank. The said letter fetched no response. Another letter was written on 29.08.2010, copy Annexure C-11. That letter was also not responded. Two more letters, Annexures C- 15 & C-16, were written on 21.12.2010 and 05.01.2011 respectively. They were also not responded. One more letter was written on 23.02.2011, copy Annexure C-18.
4. Finally, the respondent responded to letter dated 20.10.2010, vide letter dated 18.04.2011, copy Annexure C-20, whereby the appellant was informed that matter had been taken up with the competent authority, which had allowed interest on the proceeds of the FDRs, for a period of Page 4 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ five years and the appellant was required to visit the respondent-bank on any working day and to furnish a receipt of full & final payment of his claim. Appellant wrote back, vide letter dated 07.05.2011, copy Annexure C-21, that he was entitled to interest on the proceeds of two FDRs at the fixed deposit rates, applicable from time to time, as per instructions of the respondent-bank. When, there was no response to that letter, he filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the contents of two fixed deposits, with interest at fixed deposit rates, applicable from time to time and also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.
5. Complaint was contested by the respondent and it was pleaded that when the initial two deposits matured, appellant opened a new account bearing No.17952 old (New No.0356000100179527) and maturity value of the Page 5 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ two deposits, amounting to `1,16,502/-, was credited in that Saving Bank Account.
6. Appellant filed rejoinder and denied having opened any such saving bank account and alleged that that he was already having two other saving bank accounts with the respondent and there was hardly any need for opening a new account for getting the payment of two fixed deposits. He alleged that respondent had misplaced the deposit receipts, which were submitted to him on the maturity of fixed deposits, in the year 1997, with the request for re-investment of the money in fixed deposit for further five years and, therefore, a plea of opening a new saving bank account had been cooked up to deprive him of his legitimate claim for interest at fixed deposit rates on his money.
7. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has accepted the appellant's contention and ordered the payment of amount of `1,16,502/-, with Page 6 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ interest at fixed deposit rates, from the date of maturity of initial deposits, till the payment of said amount of money and another sum of `3,000/-, on account of litigation expenses. Nothing has been awarded on account of compensation. Appellant's grievance is that he be paid `30,000/-, for mental agony & harassment and `10,000/-, on account of deficiency in service.
8. Opposite party is aggrieved by the direction for payment of costs and interest at the rates of fixed deposit, from the date of maturity of initial deposits.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
10. Opposite party was supposed to be possessed of record in the form of application for opening a new account and other documents, required to be submitted with such application, in case the appellant had approached him (the office of bank) for opening a new saving bank account, for Page 7 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ the purpose of transferring the contents of two initial fixed deposits in that account. For the reasons, best known to him, the opposite party has not produced that record, despite the fact that appellant in his rejoinder denied this allegation (of opening of a saving bank account) and pleaded that he was already having two saving bank accounts with the opposite party and the contents of two deposits could have been transferred to either of those two saving bank accounts. Opposite party does not deny that the appellant was having two other saving bank accounts with him. Non- production of record, pertaining to opening of a new saving bank account at the instance of the complainant, renders the respondent liable to an adverse inference, not only qua the fact that the appellant did not apply for opening a new bank account, but also with regard to the respondent's plea that he had transferred the contents of the fixed deposits in that saving bank account. It Page 8 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ appears that the respondent, after long lapse, has cooked up a story to save his own skin, for sleeping over the claim of the appellant and to avoid payment of interest at the fixed deposit rates of interest, on the maturity amount of initial two deposits.
11. Learned counsel representing the respondent submits that at-least, beyond the year 2009, the appellant is not entitled to any interest, because in that year, vide letter, Annexure C-8, he was told that a sum of `1,87,122/-, stood in his new saving bank account. Submission is mis-conceived. When the appellant denies having opened any saving bank account and sought the transfer of proceeds of two fixed deposits in that account and the opposite party adduced no evidence to support the plea of the opening of a new account by the appellant, there was no question of the appellant accepting the amount of `1,87,122/-, which was worked out by adding interest on the principal Page 9 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ amount, at the saving bank rate of interest only. He immediately wrote back to the respondent, vide Annexure C-10, but there was no response from the respondent for more than one and half year. Respondent responded only, vide letter dated 18.04.2011, Annexure C-20, informing that the bank was prepared to pay interest at the fixed deposit rates, for a period of five years and that too, if he accepted the money as full & final payment.
12. Also, it is submitted on behalf of the opposite party that the complaint, when filed, was barred by time. According to him, limitation in the case started in the year 1998, while the complaint was filed in the year 2011. Limitation for money deposits, by a customer with his banker is governed by Article 22 of the Limitation Act. Of-course, limitation will be two years, as provided in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and not the one prescribed under Article 22 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, but for the purposes of ascertaining Page 10 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ the starting point of limitation, the articles of Limitation Act are relevant. Starting point, as per Article 22 is when the demand is made. No doubt, in the present case, the demand was made by the appellant in the year 1998, but record shows that the respondent himself credited the amount in the saving bank account of the appellant. Thereafter, the demand was made by the appellant in the year 2009 and the respondent acknowledged the claim of the appellant with regard to the principle amount plus interest, added to it, at the saving bank account rate in the year 2011, vide Annexure C-20, and by this acknowledgement, a fresh lease of limitation became available to the appellant. Complaint was filed in the 2011 itself. Therefore, the opposite party cannot be heard to say that complaint was barred by time. In any case, this plea has been raised for the first time in the appeal. No such plea was raised in reply to the complaint. Page 11 of 13
Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________
13. In view of what has been noticed hereinabove, we find no error in the order of learned District Forum, with regard to the direction to the opposite party to pay the maturity value of initial deposits with interest at fixed deposit rates.
14. As regards the claim of appellant for payment of compensation, we do feel that in view of the fact that the respondent not only delayed the payment of money due to the appellant, but also cooked up a false story to deny him the benefit of interest at fixed deposit rates, as discussed hereinabove, appellant deserves to be suitably compensated for the harassment, suffered by him, at the hands of the respondent and also for deficiency in service. In our considered view, a sum of `20,000/-, should be reasonable amount of compensation on this score.
15. As a result of the above stated position, appeal filed by the opposite party, i.e. F.A. No. 224/2015, is dismissed and appeal filed by the Page 12 of 13 Sukh Dev Singh Gill Versus Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank (F.A. No.221/2015) & Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank Versus Sukh Dev Singh Gill (F.A. No.224/2015) ________________________________________________________________ complainant, i.e. F.A. No. 221/2015, is allowed and it is ordered that in addition to paying the maturity value of the initial deposits, with interest at the fixed deposit rates, applicable from time to time, the respondent shall pay a sum of `20,000/-, on account of compensation. Also, we direct the respondent to pay `5,000/-, on account of costs of these appeals.
16. This order be placed on the record of F.A. No.221/2015 and its authenticated copy on the record of F.A. No. 224/2015.
17. A copy of the order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) Member (Vijay Pal Khachi) Member February 22,2016.
Gaurav) Page 13 of 13