Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member
Raghunandan Prasad – Petitioner
versus
Assistant General Manager, State Bank
of India – Respondent
Revision Petition No.554 of 2021
(Against the Order dated 18/12/2019 in Appeal No.64/2017 of the State Commission Bihar)
Decided on 15.9.2021
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 24) – Revision Petition – Against the Order dt. 18.12.2019 in Appeal passed by State Commission - Petitioner filed complaint alleging that he deposited Rs. 6 lakhs in State Bank of India under Term Deposit for a prd. of 2 months – Petitioner applied for an overdraft of Rs.1,50,000/- against the aforesaid TDR – Petitioner alleged that ignoring AGM’s order, after adjusting the amt. of overdraft, Rs.1,50,000/- from maturity benefit, remaining amt. was transferred to Petitioner’s account – Complaint filed - Distt. Forum by Order dt. 09.12.2013 dismissed complaint holding that no application for renewal/extension of TDR was filed on 03.03.2001 - Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order before State Commission which was allowed – Matter remanded to Distt. Forum – Respondent bank challenged Order in Revision Petition in 2015 before this Commission, which was dismissed – Distt. Forum by order dt. 31.12.2016 held that State Commission observed that there was deficiency in service; thus, Distt. Forum allowed the complaint – Respondent bank directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost to Petitioner – Per Respondent, after adjusting the amt. of overdraft from the maturity benefit of TDR, remaining amt. was transferred to the savings acc. of the Petitioner per bank rules - Petitioner relied upon the circular of the bank dt. 03.07.2006, which was not in existence on 12.03.2001, as such no benefit of this circular can be given to the Petitioner - State Commission without considering evidence on record accepted finding of Distt. Forum in respect of deficiency in service, enhanced compensation - Later, on appeals by both petitioner and respondent, State Commission found that there was some deficiency in service as such the order of the District Forum was modified and compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,75,000/- and cost of litigation was enhanced to Rs.25,000/- Hence, the revision petition – Findings of this Commission: There was no application for extension/renewal of TDR as alleged dt. 03.03.2001, nor there was any rule at that time for extension of the TDR, after adjusting amount of overdraft – Alleged application relied upon by the Petitioner dt. 03.04.2001 did not bear Assistant General Manager’s signature - Concurrent findings of fact cannot be challenged in any way in this revision. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 9 & 10)
Result: Revision has no merit, dismissed.
ORDER
Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member.—Heard Mr. Ritesh Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.
2. This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna dated 18.12.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 64 of 2017, whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal and awarded Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation by way of interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation, to the petitioner.
3. The petitioner filed Consumer Complaint alleging that he had deposited Rs. 6 lakhs in State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch at Patna on 09.01.1998 under Term Deposit (TDR) for a period of two months. The petitioner applied for an overdraft of Rs.1,50,000/- against the aforesaid TDR on 28.02.2001. The petitioner also filed an application on 03.03.2001, for extending the TDR for 60 months with effect from 09.03.1998 to 08.03.2003, which was allowed by Assistant General Manager. But ignoring the order of Assistant General Manager, after adjusting the amount of overdraft of Rs.1,50,000/- from maturity benefit, the remaining amount has been transferred to the account of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner suffered financial loss, on interest. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 25.01.2007, claiming 12% p.a. interest on the amount deposited by him.
4. The bank contested the case and filed its written reply on 26.05.2007 in which it has been specifically denied that any application for extension/renewal of TDR was made on 03.03.2001. It has been stated that initial TDR of the petitioner was for a period of two months but as per rules of the bank, period of TDR was extended time to time up to 12.03.2001. When the petitioner applied for over draft on 28.02.2001, then after adjusting the amount of overdraft from maturity benefit of TDR, remaining amount was deposited in the savings account of the petitioner on 12.03.2001, according to the rules of the bank. The petitioner made a complaint in this respect before Bank Ombusdon, Patna, who after examining the case of the parties by order dated 06.11.2006 found that there was no application for extension/renewal of TDR as alleged dated 03.03.2001. When the petitioner took facility of overdraft on 28.02.2001 then as per rules of the bank the overdraft was adjusted from the maturity benefit of the TDR and the remaining amount was transferred to his account. The alleged application for renewal bears the date 03.04.2001 and it does not bear the signature of the Assistant General Manager as alleged. The complaint was not maintainable.
5. The petitioner filed rejoinder reply to the counter reply of the bank on 28.02.2006. Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum by order dated 09.12.2013 dismissed the complaint holding that no application for renewal/extension of TDR was filed on 03.03.2001.The alleged application bears the date 03.04.2001, but does not bear the signature of the Assistant General Manager as alleged by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in FA No.10 of 2014 before State Commission which was allowed by the State Commission by order dated 10.06.2015 and the matter was remanded to the District Forum for deciding, the Issue as to how the bank has made full and final payment of TDR adjusting the amount of overdraft Rs.1.25 lakhs, which was not even communicated to the complainant, although the circular of the bank dated 03.07.2006 provides a contrary provision for renewal of the TDR. The bank challenged the aforesaid order in Revision Petition No.2376 of 2015 before this Commission, which was dismissed on 04.11.2015.
6. After remand, the District Forum by order dated 31.12.2016 held that as the State Commission has observed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank as such District Forum has no option but to allow the complaint. On this
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
