Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member and C. Viswanath, Member
Raosaheb Shankarrao Somwanshi —Petitioner
versus
Branch Manager, State Bank of India
and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.1283 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 25/01/2017 in Appeal No.55/2015 of the State Commission Maharashtra)
Decided on 23.11.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. S.R. Bhonsle, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2:Mr. Ritesh Khare, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
No deficiency in service on part bank fond in cancelling an FDR where no money was actually deposited.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(c) and 21(b) : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(6) and 58]—Fixed deposit—Repudiation of maturity amount—Legality of—Allegedly term deposit receipt was issued by respondent no.1 Bank to petitioner which was due to be matured on 9.7.2009 for maturity amount of Rs. 5,51,906/-—On alleged maturity date respondent-Bank refused to encash the FDR—Challenge against—Petitioner has not filed any receipt of deposit of Rs. 5 Lakhs either on 8.7.2008 or on 9.7.2008 in his saving bank account as claimed by the petitioner—No amount can be deposited directly in a term deposit account without first being deposited in the savings bank account and then transforming the same to the term deposit account by way of transfer voucher or cheque—Absence of any receipt of deposit of Rs. 5 lakhs in the saving bank account either on 8th July 2008 or on 9th July 2008, clearly strengthens the case respondent-bank—Since there was no money in the term deposit account, FDR cancelled—Deficiency on part of bank in cancelling such an FDR, where no money was actually deposited ruled out. (Paras 5 to 8)
Result: Petition dismissed.
ORDER
Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Raosaheb Shankarrao Somwanshi challenging the order dated 25.01.2017 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (‘the State Commission’) passed in First Appeal no. 55 of 2015.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on 8th July 2008 term deposit receipt bearing receipt no. TDA/47 648062 was issued by the respondent no.1 Bank to the petitioner which was due to be matured on 09.07.2009 for maturity amount of Rs.5,51,906/-. On 12.08.2011 the petitioner approached the office of the respondent no.2 Bank for encashing the above said FDR. The respondent Bank thereafter cancelled the said FDR. On 13th January 2012, legal notice was issued through the Advocate for the petitioner to respondent no .1 Bank calling upon the respondent Bank to repay the petitioner’s amount under the FDR no.648062 with interest. On 30th January 2012, respondent no.1 Bank replied to the notice sent by the petitioner wherein the respondent Bank accepts the fact that the FDR no. 648062 was issued to the petitioner, however, the same was due to oversight as the petitioner had not signed and executed the transfer voucher of his Savings Bank Account and therefore, an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was never transferred to the FD Account and therefore, the Bank was not liable to pay any amount to the petitioner.
3. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint bearing No. 57 of 2012 before the District Forum praying for direction to the opposite party bank to pay the maturity amount of the FDR. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party bank by filing the written statement and taking the same ground as was given in reply to the legal notice. The District Forum vide its order dated 03.09.2014 decided the complaint. Out of the two Members and the President of the District Forum, one Member and the President allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party bank to pay Rs.5 lakhs along with interest. However, the other member gave a dissenting judgment and dismissed the complaint. As the majority decision was for allowing the complaint, the opposite party bank preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA No. 55 of 2015. The State Commission vide it’s older dated 25.01.2017 allowed the appeal of the opposite party bank and set aside the order of the District Forum as well as dismissed the complaint.
4. Hence, the present revision petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner complainant stated that an amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited in the term deposit account on 8th July 2008 and the FDR was issued to the complainant on the same day. The complainant had again deposited another Rs.5 lakhs in the saving bank account on 9th July 2008. However, when the FDR was presented for encashment in respondent No. 2 branch of the bank, the same was canceled and no payment has been made to the complainant so far. The respondent No. 1 branch of the bank has alleged that the transfer voucher was not signed by the complainant and therefore money could not be transferred from the saving bank account to the term deposit account of the complainant and hence the FDR was canceled. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that no bank would issue a FDR without receiving the money. The issuance of the FDR on 8th July 2008 is itself a testimony that the amount of Rs.5 lakhs was deposited in the bank on 8th July 2008 itself and the amount deposited on 9th July 2008 was different amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The District Forum has correctly appreciated the facts and the law involved in the matter and has therefore ordered the payment of Rs.5 lakhs along with interest to the complainant. However, the State Commission has relied on the story of the opposite party bank which itself is unbelievable because the same is against the normal banking norms. Learned counsel fur
