Concurrent findings of fact by lower forums cannot be challenged when properly established.

1. 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 lakh in State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch at Patna on 9.1.1998 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 28.2.2001. The petitioner also filed an application on 3.3.2001, for extending the TDR for 60 months with effect from 9.3.1998 to 8.3.2003, 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 25.1.2007, claiming 12% p.a. interest on the amount deposited by him.

4. The bank contested the case and filed its written reply on 26.5.2007 in which it has been specifically denied that any application for extension / renewal of TDR was made on 3.3.2001. 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 12.3.2001. When the petitioner applied for over draft on 28.2.2001, then after adjusting the amount of overdraft from maturity benefit of TDR, remaining amount was deposited in the savings account of the petitioner on 12.3.2001, 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 6.11.2006 found that there was no application for extension / renewal of TDR as alleged dated 3.3.2001. When the petitioner took facility of overdraft on 28.2.2001 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 28.2.2006. Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum by order dated 9.12.2013 dismissed the complaint holding that no application for renewal / extension of TDR was filed on 3.3.2001. The alleged application bears the date 3.4.2001, 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 10.6.2015 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 lakh, which was not even communicated to the complainant, although the circular of the bank dated 3.7.2006 provides a contrary provision for renewal of the TDR. The bank chall