IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Customers’ right to claim balance in their account does not lapse merely due to inaction over time, particularly when bank is in continued possession of funds without demonstrating withdrawal of amount.
(2) A financial institution, like Bank, cannot take shelter under technological transitions, once it has been established that it has been in receipt and custody of public funds deposited.
(3) Dormancy of an account, on account of certain initiatives by Bank, does not by itself extinguish rights of customers who deposited money on Bank—It is liability of Bank to account for funds lawfully deposited by customers.

JUDGMENT

AVM J. Rajendra AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Presiding Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 19.12.2019, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”) in First Appeal No.829/2018, partly allowing the Appeal of the Appellant/OP while modifying the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur (District Forum) order dated 19.03.2018 in CC No.331/2013.

2. For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, that the Complainant School had opened Current Account No.4344 on 16.05.1990 with the OP Bank and was operated by the school from time to time. As on 22.04.1991, the Account reflected a credit balance of Rs.93,594.10, following which no transactions were carried out for an extended period. Upon inquiry by the present Manager of the school, Shri Bhagwati Prasad, it came to light that the said Account had remained inoperative for several years. Consequently, on 16.06.2010, the Complainant School submitted an application to the OP Bank requesting that the account be made operative. In response, the OP sought certain documents, pursuant to which the Complainant submitted a photocopy of the deposit slip and the cheque book. However, no further action was taken by OP. The Complainant pointed that previously, on 24.11.1990, a sum of Rs.2,500/- was withdrawn from the said account vide cheque No.013988. Further, on 26.03.1991, an amount of Rs.4,500/- was deposited vide cheque No.82400, followed by a deposit of Rs.9,000/- through cheque No.766390 on the same day. Subsequently, on 22.04.1991 a cheque of Rs.80,000 bearing No.845329 dated 20.04.1991 was also deposited, which was duly acknowledged by the OP’s employee. Despite these details, the OP did not revive or operationalize the account. Left with no recourse, the Manager of the Complainant School made a further representation and sought information under the Right to Information Act. In reply, vide letter dated 16.08.2013, the Sub-Regional Manager of OP Bank informed that the account in question pertained to a period prior to 1991 and had remained dormant since then, and as such, no information regarding the said account could be disclosed. Aggrieved by the inaction and denial of information, the Complainant School filed the consumer complaint.

4. On being issued notice, OP filed its written statement contending that Account No.4344, opened by the Complainant School dated back to a period prior to the year 1991, and no transaction had taken place in the said account since then. It was further contended that, owing to the prolonged dormancy, the said account was not computerized when the OP bank transitioned to digital systems in the year 2003. The OP averred that since 2007, the bank has been operating under the Core Banking Solution (CBS) system. However, the said system did not reflect any record or balance pertaining to Account No.4344. The OP attributed this to the non-availability of old manual records, which made it difficult to retrieve or provide detailed information related to the account. It was further stated in the written version that the Complainant School had opened another account No.1433191267 with the OP bank, in the same name, on 01.08.2023. OP contended that, under prevailing Banking Rules, it was impermissible for a person or entity to operate two current accounts in the same branch under the same name. On this ground, the OP submitted that the present complaint was not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed.

5. The District Forum vide Order dated 19.03.2018, allowed the complaint with the following finding:—

“This complaint of the complainant is admitted against the respondent. The respondent is directed to pay Rs 93,594.00, the deposited amount of the complainant, within a period of