State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mahendrapal S/O.Kashiram Sharma vs 1. Manager, Idbi Bank, on 23 July, 2012
1 F.A.No.: 205-11
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
Date of filing: 11.04.2011
Date of Order: 23.07.2012
FIRST APPEAL NO.: 205 OF 2011
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 310 OF 2011
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: AURANGABAD.
Mahendrapal s/o.Kashiram Sharma
R/o. Vedantnagar, Aurangabad. ...Appellant
-Versus-
1. Manager, IDBI Bank,
IDBI TGower Cuffe Parade,
Colaba, Mumbai-400005.
2. The Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd;
Nariman Bhavan 227,
Vinayak Shaha Marg,
Nariman Point Mumbai-400 021.
3. The Manager, IDBI Bank,
Vivekanand College Road,
Aurangabad. ...Respondents
... Respondent
Coram : Mr. B. A.Shaikh, Hon'ble Presiding Judicial Member
Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member Present: Adv. Shri. Rahul Joshi for appellant.
Adv. Shri. A. S. Pathak for respondent.
- :: ORAL ORDER ::-
Per Mr. K. B. Gawali, Hon'ble Member
1. This appeal is filed by the original complainant namely Mahindrapal Kashiram Sharma against the judgment and order dated 18.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Aurangabad in complaint case No. 311/2010.
The present respondents are the original opponents. It is the case of the 2 F.A.No.: 205-11 appellant/original complainant that, he had purchased IDBI deep discount bonds in the year 18.03.1996 by investing Rs.5,300/-. It was assured that after 25 years he would get back Rs.2,00,000/-. However, he received the letter dated 25.03.2000 from the respondent bank through which it was intimated that the scheme of those bonds had closed and directed to surrender the original bonds and the bank would pay Rs.10,000/- as redeemed value of the bonds. The appellant however intimated to the respondent bank by letter dated 02.06.2000 that he was unable to submit original bonds as they were misplaced and requested to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- including interest in "Suvidha Fixed Deposit Scheme". However, there was no response from the IDBI Bank and hence the appellant wrote a letter dated 07.06.2006 to the bank for inquiring the status of the amount of bonds. Thereafter he received letter dated 29.04.2009 from the respondent bank directing him to return the original bonds so as to collect the amount of Rs.10,000/- and that no interest would be payable after 01.08.2000. The appellant therefore by his letter dated 16.06.2009 sought detail information from the bank which was replied by the bank vide letter dated 10.07.2009 again calling the original bonds. Thereafter, the respondent bank by its letter dated 26.09.2009 shown its willingness to pay interest at 3.5% but asked to submit original bonds. It was therefore contended by the appellant/complainant that the respondent bank has committed deficiency in service and has indulged in unfair trade practice by not depositing his amount in Suvidha Fixed Deposit and thereby depriving him of the interest amount. He therefore approached to the District Forum seeking direction to the respondent bank to pay him bond amount of Rs. 10,000/- at 18 % interest from 02.06.2000 till the final disposal of his complaint along with Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and Rs. 30,000/- for the financial loss and Rs.10,000/- as cost of the complaint.
2. The respondent bank appeared before the Forum and denied the claim of the respondent. It was submitted that the complaint was not maintainable for he had purchased the deep discount bond for commercial purpose; hence 3 F.A.No.: 205-11 he being not consumer, his complaint was not tenable. It was further submitted that the appellant/complainant had not hired any service for consideration from the respondent and hence he could not be said as consumer u/s. 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act. It was also contended that the complaint filed by the present appellant was hopelessly time barred and hence not maintainable. As regards the claim of the appellant/complainant regarding deposit of Rs. 10,000/- in Suvidha Tax Saving Fix Deposit for five years at 8.5% for senior citizen. It was submitted that no such scheme at the mentioned rate of interest was operative in IDBI at that time. It was also submitted that the appellant was informed by letter dated 29.04.2009 to submit original bonds. However he failed to surrender those bonds and therefore the amount of Rs.10,000/- was not given to him. It was also further contended that the bank vide its letter dated 26.09.2009 had also shown its willingness to pay the said amount of Rs.10000/- with 3.5 % interest p.a. on quarterly compounding basis but the complainant did not comply the condition regarding surrender of duly discharged bonds. It was therefore contended that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of respondent and the complaint being baseless and fraudulent be dismissed.
3. The District Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation. It was observed by the District Forum that the appellant/complainant vide its letter dated 02.06.2000 had requested for transferring his bond amount of Rs.10,000/- in Suvidha Fixed Deposit and it was contended by him that there was no response from the IDBI therefore the cause of action had occurred on 02.06.2000 only. However, the complaint was filed on 19.03.2010 i.e. much after the lapse of limitation period u/s. 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. It was further observed that no separate application for condonation of delay is filed by the complainant and therefore the complaint was dismissed.
4 F.A.No.: 205-114. Aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order the appellant/complainant filed the present appeal before the Commission. The respondents were served with the notices. Matter was kept for admission hearing on 03.07.2012. Adv. Shri. Rahul Joshi was present for appellant whereas Adv. Shri. A. S. Pathak was present for the respondent. With the consent of both the advocates we heard the appeal finally at the stage of admission and the appeal was closed for orders.
5. Adv. Shri. Rahul Joshi for the appellant argued that, the respondent bank did not act as per the request of the appellant made vide letter dated 02.06.2000, to keep the amount of bond in Suvidha Fixed Deposit Scheme. He further argued that, there was no response from the bank to the letter dated 02.06.2000 by the respondent bank and hence the appellant again had sent a letter dated 07.06.2006 for inquiring the status of the amount of his bonds. But again respondent bank after three years informed that no interest on Rs.10,000/- was payable and only Rs.10,000/- which is the redemption value of the bonds would be payable on surrender of original bonds. It was contended by the learned counsel that, when by letter dated 02.06.2000 it was made clear that, the bonds were not traceable and hence the amount of Rs.10,000/- be deposited in the Suvidha Deposit Scheme it was obligatory on the part of the bank to deposit the same in the said scheme. Therefore by not depositing the said amount in the Fixed Deposit Scheme the respondent bank has committed deficiency in service and also played unfair trade practice. He further argued that, after his letter dated 02.06.2000 he had further made correspondence on 07.06.2006 to which respondent bank replied on 19.04.2009 & 26.09.2009 and hence there was a continuous cause of action. However, the District Forum has wrongly taken the cause of action as on 02.06.2000 and declared the complaint as time-barred. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum being defective be quashed and set aside.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel Shri. A. S. Pathak for the respondent submitted that, the respondent bank vide its letter dated 25.05.2000 5 F.A.No.: 205-11 (wrongly mentioned as 25.03.2000 by appellant) intimating to all the bond holders that, the scheme of flexi bonds 1996 has been called of by the IDBI bank as per the option available w.e.f. 01.08.2010. It had also made clear that redemption value of bonds at Rs. 10,000/- as on 01.08.2010 would be paid to all the bond holders on surrender of duly discharged bond. However, the present appellant/complainant did not surrender his discharge bond and therefore amount of Rs.10,000/- was not paid. As regards his request to deposit Rs.10,000/- in Suvidha Deposit Scheme it was contended that there was no such scheme @ 8 % interest. He also submitted that cause of action arose to file the complaint before the Forum as rightly observed by the District Forum was on 02.06.2000, but the complaint was filed much after the period of limitation i.e. in the year 2010 and hence the District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint. He further argued that, as the respondent bank has shown its willingness to pay bond amount of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at 3.5% as special case, there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. In fact, it was the appellant/complainant who had not acted as per the instructions regarding surrender of original bonds. He also contended that the respondent bank had informed the appellant that in case the original bonds were lost he should submit an undertaking on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/- as per the draft supplied to him. But the appellant did not comply these instructions also. Thus the learned counsel contended that respondent bank was all the while ready to make the payment of the bond amount along with the interest at 3.5 % p.a. However, the appellant failed to comply the requirements as mentioned above. Therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank which has rightly been considered by the District Forum and passed the impugned judgment and order which needs to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal.
7. We have perused the record as well as the given anxious thought to the oral submissions as put forth by the learned counsel of both the parties. The main grievance of the appellant is that, the District Forum has wrongly 6 F.A.No.: 205-11 considered the date of cause of action and on the point of limitation the complaint was dismissed without appreciating the further correspondence made with the respondent bank and neglecting the merit of the case. We have observed that, the appellant/complainant vide its letter dated 02.06.2000 intimated to the respondent bank that the said bonds were not traceable and therefore the full amount of his two bonds be invested in Fixed Deposit Scheme and he be informed accordingly. He had also requested to send him the form of the fixed deposit earlier so that he would fill up the same and send it back to the bank. The point is when the appellant had requested to keep the amount of bond in fixed deposit and when there was no response from the respondent bank, why did he wait till 07.06.2006 i.e. for six years to enquire about the status of his bonds. It is the contention of the appellant that on 07.06.2006 he inquired with the bank regarding the balance which was standing in his account but again there was no reply from the bank till 27.04.2009 and the appellant kept quite without taking any action. In our view, therefore the actual cause of action arose on 02.06.2000 or thereafter about two months from the date of sending the letter dated 02.06.2000 i.e. time required for getting intimation to deposit his amount in the fixed deposit. However after waithing for about two months if there was no response from respondent bank he could have immediately filed the complaint with the District Forum. However, he filed the said complaint actually on 19.03.2010 i.e. after 10 years. Therefore the District Forum has rightly held that the complaint was hopelessly time barred.
7. We have also considered the merit of the case. The grievance of the appellant against the respondent bank is that, it has not deposited the amount of Rs. 10,000/- in Suvidha Fixed Deposit Scheme. As per the written version filed by the respondent bank it appears that, there was no such scheme available at the interest rate of 8.5% p.a. as was sought by the appellant. The second grievance is refund of amount Rs.10,000/- with interest at 8.5% which has not been accepted by the respondent bank. In fact, the perusal of the letter 7 F.A.No.: 205-11 dated 25.09.2000 the same is issued by the respondent bank to all the bond holders. It has made clear that "no interest would be payable after 1 st August, 2000". It is further observed that, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- was to be refunded subject to the surrender of duly discharged of bond certificates. It has come on record that, the original bonds of the appellant were misplaced and not traceable. However, as per the letter dated 10 th July, 2009 the appellant should have submitted his undertaking on the stamp paper of Rs.20/- in the format which was supplied by the respondent bank. We have further observed that, the respondent bank vide its letter dated 26.09.2009 had also come forward with offer to pay amount of Rs. 10,000/- along with interest at 3.5% as special case w.e.f. 01.08.2000. However, the appellant has not complied with the instruction as given by the respondent bank. He himself appears to be responsible for non-payment of his bond amount as declared by the respondent bank till date. We therefore find no deficiency in service on the part of respondent bank and hence no substance in the present appeal filed by the appellant/complainant. We are therefore not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Forum. With these observations, we dispose of this appeal as per the following order.
-:: ORDER ::-
1. Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to cost.
(K. B. Gawali) (B. A. Shaikh)
Member Presiding Judicial Member
Kalyankar