Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.K. Agrawal, President and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
Punjab National Bank and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Abha Jain – Respondent
Revision Petition No.1681 of 2018
(Against the Order dated 14/12/2017 in Appeal No.170/2011 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh)
Decided on 21.4.2022
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.21(b)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(b)] – Services – Banking – Fixed Deposit – Liability to pay maturity amount - Bank was duty bound to preserve a computerized record before destroying the 8 years old record- Failed to produce policy of destroying records - Addational documents – not part of pleadings – cannot be permitted to be filed - Revision against order of State Commission - There is a concurrent finding of facts returned by both the Fora Below that the Petitioner Bank has completely failed to lead and documentary evidence to substantiate that the maturity amount of the FDR of Rs.40,000/- was made by them to the grandmother of the Complainant. The only defence taken by the Bank was that they were not required to maintain any FDR record after 8 years as per their record maintenance policy. However, they failed to produce any such policy – Thus, as rightly observed by the District Forum, in terms of the said guidelines, the Petitioner Bank was duty bound to preserve a computerized record before destroying the 8 years old record which was not done by the Petitioner Bank and it amounts to deficiency in service on their part and they are liable to pay the maturity amount of the FDR to the Complainant - Petitioner Bank has moved an Interim Application seeking leave of this Commission to place on record Over Due Fixed Deposit Register - The said Register was not a part of the pleadings before the Fora below. Besides, if the Petitioner Bank was maintaining the old record of the Over Due Fixed Deposits, it cannot be understood why the record of the encashment of the FDR of Rs.40,000/- was not in possession of the Petitioner Bank which manifestly proves the fact that the said FDR was in fact not got encashed by the grandmother of the Complainant and the Petitioner Bank cannot escape from its liability to pay the maturity amount to the Complainant - Revision dismissed. [Paras 9 to 12]
Result: Petition dismissed.
Key Points: - The Bank was held deficient in service for failing to preserve computerized records before destroying an 8-year-old record and was liable to pay the FDR maturity amount (!) . - The State Commission and District Forum found the Bank had not substantiated its claim with evidence and could not rely on destroying policies absent proper policy production (!) (!) (!) . - The revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act has limited revisional power and cannot override factual findings of the Fora below, especially where there is no material irregularity or illegality in the orders (!) (!) . - The Bank’s arguments based on an Over Due Fixed Deposit Register, not part of the pleadings, were rejected as not admissible, reinforcing that new documents cannot be introduced to alter the record on revisional review (!) . - The overall conclusion was that the Revision Petition is devoid of merit and was dismissed (!) . - The court referenced limiting principles from Sunil Kumar Maity v. State Bank of India to emphasize restricted revisional jurisdiction (!) (!) . - The Complainant was entitled to the maturity amount of Rs. 40,000 along with other reliefs as determined by the Fora below (!) (!) . - The factual sequence shows the FDRs were opened by the grandmother, with encashment details disputed and not fully available, leading to a finding of deficiency (!) (!) . - There is an explicit finding that the Bank could not prove that the Rs.40,000 FDR was encashed by the grandmother and thus could not escape liability (!) . - The final order dismisses the revision without cost implications (!) .
ORDER
1. Delayed condoned.
2. Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short “the Act”) by the Petitioners/Opposite Parties in the Complaint, is to the Order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow (in short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 170 of 2011. By the impugned Order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioners questioning the legality of the Order dated 01.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Meerut (in short, “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 55/2008. By the said Order, the District Forum while allowing the Complaint preferred by the Complainant, had directed the Petitioner Bank to refund a sum of Rs.40,000/- to the Complainant towards the value of the Fixed Deposit Receipt along with interest @ 15% p.a from the date of fixed deposit till last payment, pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental and economic damage and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs towards litigation.
3. The facts material to the case are that when the Complainant was minor, her grand-mother Late Smt. Ganga Devi, opened a Joint Saving Account No. 316000100022400 on 14.02.1984 along with her at Branch Office Saharanpur of the Petitioner Bank. During her life time, she made three fixed deposits of Rs.7,000/- on 10.10.1984, Rs.30,000/- on 03.10.1988 and Rs.40,000/- on 17.01.1990 respectively with the Opposite Party Bank from the said account. The Saving Bank Account was to be operated jointly or severally by Late Smt. Ganga Devi and the Complainant. Smt. Ganga Devi, grand-mother of the Complainant expired on 09.11.1997 and the Complainant became the sole operator of the said Saving Account.
4. In the year 2004, the Complainant came to know that her late grand-mother had made three aforesaid Fixed Deposit Receipts with the Petitioner. Since, the documents relating to the aforesaid FDRs were not available with her, she along with her Brother contacted the Petitioner Bank and enquired about the status of the FDRS in question. On the request of the Complainant’s Brother to verify the FD Account Opening Register and Index Register, they were informed by the Petitioner Bank that more than 8 years old record had been destroyed by them as per the Banking Guidelines and as such record pertaining to these FDRs is not available with them, however, they were not able to produce any such guidelines. On 24.03.2004, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Petitioner Bank enclosing the photocopy of the Pass book of the Saving Account but there was no response from the Petitioner Bank. She sent another letter to the Petitioner Bank on 09.05.2004 to expedite the matter as she was badly in need of money for higher education of her daughter. Vide Letter dated 21.05.2004, the Petitioner Bank requested the Complainant to furnish the complete details of the FDRS giving reference of the Pass Book, however, vide letter dated 24.05.2004 the Complainant denied to have such informed and requested the Bank to look into the matter. Since, there was no reply from the Bank thereafter, the Complainant sent the copies of her earlier correspondence to the Head Officer of the Petitioner Bank at New Delhi and to the Banking Ombudsman Department of the Reserve Bank of India. Finally, she received a letter dated 14.08.2004 from the Petitioner Bank giving details of the encashment of FDRs of Rs.7,000/- and Rs.30,000/- by Late Ganga Devi during her life time, however, the Petitioner Bank could not furnish the details about the status of the FDR of Rs.40,000/- since there was no entry in the Pass Book after 09.08.1990. On 02.08.2007, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Head Office of the Petitioner Bank at Rajinder Bhawan, Rajindra Place, New Delhi under RTI Act 2005 to enquire about the fate of the FDR of Rs.40,000/-, however, she was not given the exact information and then the Complainant
SupremeToday
Computerized record - Bank was duty bound to preserve a computerized record before destroying the 8 years old record which was not done by the Petitioner Bank and it amounts to deficiency in service ....
The bank's failure to maintain records leads to liability for non-payment of fixed deposits.
1) It does not appear logical that a person would deposit part of money in his Saving Bank Acc. for converting it into Fixed Deposit and withdraw the bal. amt. of Rs.47,000/- for converting into anot....
The Court reaffirmed that banks must honor valid Fixed Deposit receipts unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, upholding consumer protection principles.
Principal can be held liable for wrong committed by its Authorised Agent.
(1) Statutory duty upon the Petitioner Bank to return the deposited money in the PF Account of HUF on maturity.(2) Bank acted in gross violation by not complying with statutory duty as per rules/laws....
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
