Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/38/2021

Sri Prativa Patel - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Branch Manager, Utkal Gramin Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.K. Panda & B. Panda

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 38/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

 

Sri Prativa Patel,

W/O-Sidhartha Patel,

R/O-Sauntimal,Po-Bhojpur, PS-Kuchinda

Dist-Sambalpur, Odisha,768107.                                  ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Branch Manager, Utkal Gramin Bank

Bhojpur Branch, At/Po-Bhojpur,

Ps-Kuchinda, Dist- Sambalpur

Odisha.

2. The General Manager-III, Accounts and Compliance

Department of Utkal Grameen Bank,

Sponsered By State Bank Of India,

Head Office At/Po/Ps-Bolangir,

Dist-Bolangir,PIN-767001,Odisha

3. The Regional Director, Reserve Bank Of India,

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Post Box NO-16,

Bhubaneswar-751001,Odisha                              …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-         Sri. P.K.Panda, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.1 & 2                         :-         Dr. M.Panda
3. For the O.P. No.3                                    :-         Mr. Amit Kumar

 

Date of filing:06.08.2021 Date of Hearing :30.08.2022, Date of Judgement : 11.10.2022

      Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT,

1. The case of the Complainant is that the Complainant is a farmer and made a short term deposit (STD) of Rs. 50,000/- with O.P. No.1 Grameen Bank having S.T.D A/C No. 84029960791 in her name. On the same day i.e. 06.04.2017 another Rs. 50,000/- amount was deposited in the name of his husband Sri Sidhartha Patel in S.T.D. A/C No. 84029960860. The S.T.Ds are for 3 years term and the O.P. No.1 issued two deposit receipts bearing No. UGG/TD. 081993 and UGG/TD-081994 and matured on 06.04.2020.

On 07.04.2020 the Complainant and his husband visited the O.P. No.1 Bank to withdraw the amount. The Manager denied to pay the maturity value saying “there is some technical problem in the computer and it will be solved soon.” After repeated request also the maturity value not paid.

A agrievance was given jointly on 20.08.2020 before Banking Ombudsman, R.B.I., Bhubaneswar but the same was rejected with liberty to approach any other forum.

On 26.08.2020 and 28.08.2020 representations were made but it was in vain. On 05.04.2021 the Complainant visited the Bank and gave a legal notice, the Manager read and advised to send the notice through regd. Post. The Complainant on the same day issued the legal notice. A reply notice was given by O.P. on 06.04.2021 to comply on the application dated 26.08.2020. After a long gap the O.P. No.1 replied that the S.D.Rs as invalid and expressed the non-liability of the Bank for payment. Due to non payment the Complainant failed to improve his cultivation. Being harassed this complaint was filed.

2. The O.P. No.3, regional Director, R.B.I., Bhubaneswar in its version submitted that there is no any bonafide reason to implead as party to O.P. No.3. The answering O.P. is no ay concerned with the transaction made. As a regulator of Banking business in India the O.P. No.3 is not liable for day to day internal affairs of the Bank including O.P. No.1. There is no any cause of action against O.P. No.3 and the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P. No.3.

The Complainant made a complaint before BO, Bhubaneswar against the U.G.B. bearing complaint No. 202021003001260 and the same was forwarded to UGB for reply. The reply of the UGB was forwarded to the Complainant vide e-mail dated 23.09.2020. Within the stipulated period no any reply was given by the Complainant. Thereafter the complainant was advised to take shelter before appropriate forum vide letter dated 01.10.2020. The O.P. prayed for dismissal of the Complaint against answering O.P.

3. The O.P. No.1 & 2 appeared through their advocate on 01.11.2021 before the Commission and prayed for time. Although reasonable opportunities provided the O.P. No.1 & 2 not filed their version till 21.09.2022. By that time the complaint was posted for judgement. The O.P.No.1 & 2 have not served the copy of version to the Complainant. At belated stage the O.P. No.1 & 2 filed the version, beyond the statutory period.
4. Perused the Annexure-6 of the Complainant wherein to the Annexure-3 letter dated 26.08.2020  reply  has been given on 06.04.2021. The O.P. No.1 & 2 in the said letter admitted the deposit of two sets of STDRs on 06.04.2017 in the name of the Complainant and her husband Sri Sidhartha Patel. The Complainant handed over two transfer of Rs.50,000/- each on his S/B A/C No. 12091015999 for the transfer of value having adequate balance on 06.04.2017. The Branch Staff opened two STDR Accounts as per the account opening forms  and two accounts numbers were generated in the system bearing No. 84029960860 and 84029960791 respectively. Due to technical glitch in computer system transfer of fund was delayed. Sensing inordinate delay in fund transfer and with trust the staff issued STDR, without waiting for competition of the transaction was failed on 06.04.2017 and due to paucity of required fund, the STDRs accounts automatically closed in the system on that day without knowledge of the branch staff.

In Annexure-3 the Complainant submitted that Rs. 80,000/- cash was deposited and Rs. 20,000/- withdrawal slip was submitted on the day i.e. 08.04.2017 to prepare STDRs of Rs. 50,000/- each in the name of Complainant and his wife. In reply letter annexure-6 the O.P. No.1 & 2 replied that the complainant has submitted two withdrawal vouchers of Rs. 50,000/- each. The Complainant has received Rs. 20,000/- as withdrawal money  from SB A/C No. 12091015999 on 06.04.2017. There was no cash voucher of RS. 80,000/- at Branch on 06.04.2017. The Two transfer voucher of Rs. 50,000/- each erroneously not accounted for on 06.04.2017. Thereafter the Complainant has withdrawn Rs. 1.00lakh on 30.05.2017, 05.06.2017, 07.06.2017 and 08.06.2017 of Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively without informing the Branch staff about the non-posting of two vouchers of Rs. 50,000/- each dated 06.04.2017.

The STDr issued by the Branch are in good faith and the same are invalid documents and the Bank is not liable for payment. The Bank statement of A/C No. 12091015999 supports the statement.

5. The O.P. no.3 filed a citation of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, Virendra Prasad Vs R.B.I. & others dated 13.07.1990 along with the Banking, Ombudsman Scheme 2006. The O.P. No.3 is not a banker of the Complainant and only a statutory authority. The O.P. no.3 has discharged its function after receipt of the Complaint and accordingly there is no deficiency on the part of O.P. No.3 relating to transactions between complainant and O.P. no.1 & 2. The O.P. No.3 is not a necessary party.
6. In the present complaint after perusal of the documents filed the following issues are framed:
103606587.  

1. Whether the O.P. no.1 & 2 are deficient in their service by withholding maturity of terms deposits of the Complainant and wife?
2. What relief the Complainant is entitled for?

Issue No.1 Whether the O.P. no.1 & 2 are deficient in their service by withholding maturity of terms deposits of the Complainant and wife?

          The Complainant has applied for two FDRs Rs. 50,000/- each ion his name and for her husband on 06.04.2017. The O.P. No.1 & 2 opened STDR A/C No. 84029960860 and STDR A/C No. 84029960791 in the name of Sri Sidhartha Patel and the Complainant respectively and granted certificates No. UGG/TD-081994 & 081993 respectively. The F.D.Rs are for three years terms and maturity date fixed 06.04.2020 having maturity value of Rs. 61,120/- each.

          The point of consideration is that whether the Complainant paid the amount of Rs. 1.00lakhs to the O.P. No.1 & 2 for fixed deposit and the amount duly credited in the fixed deposit account? The Complainant not uttered a single sentence about deposit of Rs. 80,000/- cash and Rs. 20,000/- transfer slip where as annexed the reply of the O.P. Bank dated 06.04.2021. It amounts to suppression of facts. The Complainants has not come to the commission with clean hand.

          The Complainant also referred the account statement supplied by O.P. No.1. In the account statement it reveals that on 06.04.2017 an amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been withdrawn from S.B. A/C No. 12091015999 and paid to the Complainant. There is no any withdrawal of Rs. 50,000/- each of the Complainant as his wife on the said day or on good faith the O.P. Bank issued the FDR certificates but due to technical defects when the fund was not transferred, automatically the FDRs were cancelled by the computer system. Thereafter neither the O.P. Bank nor the Complainant agitated the matter till the term of the alleged fixed deposits.

          The subsequent to transaction dated 06.04.2017 reflect that the Complainant has withdrawn 20,000/- Rs. 50,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively on 30.05.2017, 05.06.2017, 07.06.2017 and 08.06.2017. The Complainant has not informed the Bank about non fixed deposit. In the other hand the Bank has not taken care for the FDR receipts granted to the complainant.

As per Bank Term Deposit Scheme, 2006 Notification No. 203/2006 dated 28.07.2006 of the central Government “The Bank shall issue a term deposit receipt to an assesses on receipt of payment” It means after receipt of payment to the Complainant, but the circumstance in this complaint is different. Although FDRs have been issued there is no receipt of payment at all from the Complainant and the Complainant can not take undue advantage of the mistake of the O.P. Bank. In reality the FDRs had no any validity date and non-payment of maturity value is due to the reason discussed supra.

Banking business needs high discipline and in the present case the O.P. Bank not in a disciplined way issued the fixed deposit receipts. In the other hand the Complainant as a sensible senior citizen tried to take undue benefits out of the mistake of the O.P. Bank.

The issue is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2 What relief the Complainant is entitled for?

When the Complainant has not made payment for the FDRs, he is not entitled to get the maturity value as claimed for.

Accordingly, It is ordered:

ORDER

The Complaint is dismissed ex-parte against the O.P. No.1 & 2. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 are warned to follow the guidelines issued by central Govt. and Reverse Bank of India from time to time and act accordingly while granting FDR certificates to a customer.

The parties are to bear their own cost.

Order pronounced in open court on this 11^th October 2022.

Supply free copies to the parties.

I agree,

 

 

           

       (Shri. S.N.Tripathy)                                                     (Dr. R.K.Satapathy)           

             MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

                                                            Dictated and Corrected

                                                                             by me

 

                                                               (Dr. R.K.Satapathy)         

​