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 ₹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 ₹10,000/- as compensation for mental and economic damage and also to pay a sum of ₹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 ₹7,000/- on 10.10.1984, ₹30,000/- on 03.10.1988 and ₹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.

04.     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 ₹7,000/- and ₹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 ₹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 ₹40,000/-, however, she was not given the exact information and then the Complainant approached to the Appellate Authority under RTI Act 2005 which was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint No. 55 of 2008 before the District Forum.

05.     After filing the Preliminary Objections, the Petitioner Bank neither file any Written Version to the Complaint nor put any appearance before the District Forum and after appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Complainant, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the Petitioner Bank was deficient in service by not producing the FDR Opening Register to the Complainant and giving wrong information that more than 8 years old record has been destroyed by them in terms of the Circular No.35/2005 relating to Reserve Record Maintenance Policy.  It was further held by the District Forum that the Circular was issued in the year 2005, however, the case of the Complainant related to the year 2004 and even as per the said Circular before destroying the 8 years old record, the Petitioner Bank was under an obligation to maintain the computerized record of the same which function was not discharged by them. Accordingly, the District Forum allowed the complaint in the aforesaid terms.

06.     Dis-satisfied with the said Order, the Petitioner Bank preferred First Appeal No.170 of 2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission, after considering the material available on record and on re-appraisal of the evidence lead before it, arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner Bank was under an obligation to furnish the necessary details to the Complainant regarding payment of the maturity amount of the FDR of ₹40,000/- to her grandmother during her life time and denial of the maturity amount of the FDR in question on the mere ground that 8 years record has been destroyed as per its record maintenance policy, is not acceptable and the Petitioner Bank could not escape its liability on that ground.

07.     Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner Bank.

08.     We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and also perused the record.

09.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the Fora below had rightly held the Petitioner Bank deficient in service. There is no denial to the fact by the Petitioner Bank that during her life time the grandmother of the Complainant opened a Joint Saving Bank Account with them. The said Account was to be operated jointly or severally by her and the Complainant.  Further, the grandmother of the Complainant made three Fixed Deposit Receipts with the Bank for ₹7,000/- on 10.10.1984, ₹30,000/- on 03.10.1988 and ₹40,000/- on 17.01.1990 respectively. The grandmother of the Complainant expired on 09.11.1997 and the Complainant became the sold operator of the Bank Account. Only on 24.03.2004, after her marriage in the year 1985, the Complainant came to know about the aforesaid three Fixed Deposit Receipts through the passbook of the Account. Since the documents pertaining to the FDRs were not available with her, the Complainant approached to the Petitioner Bank and requested them to show the Fixed Deposit Account Opening Register as well as the Index Register, however, the said request was denied by the Bank stating that the Bank is not required to maintain the Fixed Deposit Ledger after 8 years in terms of their Reserve Record Maintenance Policy. But the Petitioner Bank failed to produce any such guidelines to the Complainant. On persuasive efforts being made by the Complainant, the Petitioner Bank finally informed the Complainant that FDR of ₹7,000/- made on 10.10.1984 and FDR of ₹30,000/- made on 03.10.1988 were got credited by her grandmother during her life time and since there is no further entry in the pass book after 09.08.1990, they are not in a position to inform the exact status of the FDR of ₹40,000/-. 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 ₹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. Moreover, the guidelines upon which they placed strong reliance in support of such a contention, were issued in the year 2005 and the present case related to the year 2004.  Even, 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.

10.     During the pendency of the case before us, the Petitioner Bank has moved an Interim Application No. 11336 of 2018 seeking leave of this Commission to place on record Over Due Fixed Deposit Register. It is urged in the said Application that as per the procedure of the Petitioner Bank, the FDRs which are Over Due (i.e. which have matured) but have not been paid by the Petitioner Bank, are recorded in the said Register titled as ODFD (Over Due Fixed Deposit).  It is vigorously submitted that a perusal of the Register would reveal that the entries of those FDRs which had been got encashed by the grandmother of the Complainant, have not been entered in the said OPFD Register and non-entry of encashment of the FDR of ₹40,000/- in the said Register would prove that the maturity amount of the said FDR was debited in the Joint Saving Fund Account. We do not find any merit in this lame submission of the Petitioner Bank. 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 ₹40,000/- was not in possession of the Petitioner Bank which manifestly proves the fact that the said FDR was infact 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. 

11.  For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any material irregularity and jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the Fora below warranting our interference u/s 21(b) of the Act. The Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited as has been recently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022]  by observing as under:-

“   It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

12.     Consequently, we are of the view that the Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, no orders as to the costs.