STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 314  of 2017

Bank of Baroda, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, having its Head Office at Baroda House, P.B. No. 506, Mandavi, Baroda-396006 and amongst others a Branch Office at Bulabbagh, Purnea, Bihar represented by Sri Ranjeet Kumar Thakur, the Chief Managar duly constituted attorney holder on behalf of Bank of Baroda.

                                                                                                                                                 … Opposite Parties/Appellant

Versus

Alok Kumar, S/o- Late Veer Narayan Vishwas, Resident of Village- Durgapur, PO- Garhbanaili, PS- Kasba, District- Purnea

                                                                                                                                                …. Complainant/Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Manish Kishore

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad,

                                                 Adv. Md. Tauqueer Ahar & Adv. Rohit Kumar

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 05.06.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant /O.P. Bank of Baroda for setting aside the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Purnea in Complaint Case no. 40 of 2013 whereby and whereunder direction has been issued to the appellants to pay the maturity amount of Rs. 80,844/- under Bank of Baroda, Suvidha deposit Yojna with interest @13% from 23.02.2002 and further to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation within two months from the date of order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that Rs. 40,000/- was deposited in the name of complainant in Bank of Baroda suvidha Deposit scheme in the Gulabbagh Branch  of Bank of Baroda on 22.08.1996 for a period of 66 months against which complainant was given 40 units of Bank of Baroda Suvidha deposit Scheme having total free value of Rs. 40,000/-. Initially, total maturity value of the units after 60 months was fixed at Rs. 80,844/- but complainant did not withdrew the amount and deposit continued.
3. At the time of opening of the account the father of the complainant was not alive and complainant was minor as such his uncle Satya Narayan Vishwas was made guardian of the minor complainant in the account opened in the name of complainant and a deposit receipt was also issued in the name of complainant. The deposited amount was part of insured amount received from LIC due to untimely death of father of complainant.
4. In the last week of Dec, 2010 the complainant was in urgent need of money to meet education expenses and marriage expenses. She visited the Gulabbagh Branch of the Bank of Baroda to withdraw the money and submitted an application along with the original deposit receipt but Branch Manager did not pay the matured amount on one pretext or the  other.
5. In Feb, 2012 when the complainant along with his sister insisted to withdraw the amount from his account, the Branch Manager told that the complainant has taken a loan against the fixed deposit of aforesaid account. Complainant enquired and came to know that the Bank of Baroda has issued duplicate Term Deposit receipt against the aforesaid deposit of the complainant on 03.10.2008 in the name of her uncle Satya Narayan Vishwas. The duplicate term deposit receipt was issued on the ground that original was lost and against the term deposit receipt Satya Narayan Vishwas obtained OD fodes facility limit of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 03.10.2008 which was enhanced to Rs. 2,40,000/- on 14.03.2011.
6. When the amount was not paid to the complainant she sent a legal notice to the bank upon which it was replied by the Bank to collect the money from the bank but when complainant visited the branch, nothing was paid and accordingly complainant filed a complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Purnea for payment of maturity amount  with interest and grant of adequate compensation for  physical and mental harassment as well as cost of litigation.  
7. Upon notice opposite party Bank of Baroda appeared and filed its reply in which it was admitted that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 40,000/- in Bank of Baroda under Suvidha deposit scheme in Gulabbagh branch of Bank of Baroda on 22.08.1996 but said deposit was made by Satya Narayan Vishwas as the complainant was minor and was under guardianship of Satya Narayan Vishwas who is his uncle.
8. It is further stated that the contention of complainant that in the year 2010 he had gone to the bank for withdrawal of amount is incorrect and false. Satya Narayan Vishwas availed the OD fodes facility of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 03.10.2008 and limit enhanced upto Rs. 2,40,000/- on 14.03.2011 on basis of duplicate deposit receipt. Complainant had knowledge of the fact that his uncle Satya Narayan Vishwas had obtained duplicate term deposit receipt on basis of which took OD fodes facility limits of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 03.10.2008 which was enhanced upto Rs. 2,40,000/- on 14.03.2011.
9. Complainant became major in the year 2008 but did not take any steps to remove the name of Satya Narayan Vishwas from the certificate dated 23.08.1996 who was made guardian of minor. Complainant in connivance with Satya Narayan Vishwas cheated the bank and got duplicate receipt in the name of Satya Narayan Vishwas and further permitted OD fodes facility limit and when dispute rose in the family complainant came to the bank in Jan, 2013 and served legal notice on 05.02.2013 which was replied on 11.02.2013 in which three months time was asked by the bank to resolve the issue and through letter dated 05.06.2013 informed the complainant to receive entire amount which was deposited by her guardian.
10. It was further stated that said Satya Narayan Vishwas was a necessary party but he was not made as one of the opposite parties in the complaint case.  Complainant instituted a Criminal case against Satya Narayan Vishwas and the then Manager of Bank of Baroda, Gulabbagh branch Ramastray Das which gave rise to Sadar PS case no. 374 of 2013.
11. The District Consumer Forum after hearing both the parties and on consideration of materials and evidences placed on record held that Rs. 40,000/- was deposited in the name of complainant under BOB Suvidha deposit scheme for which a deposit receipt was also issued in the name of complainant and as complainant was minor the account was opened under  guardianship of his uncle Satya Nanarayan Vishwas and on basis of false pretext that the original receipt was lost duplicate deposit receipt was  issued in the name of Satya Narawan Vishwas although the original deposit receipt was in the name of complainant and on basis of which Satya Narayan Vishwas was provided OD fades Suvidha facility for Rs. 1,24,000/- and which was enhanced subsequently as Rs. 2,40,000/- and when complainant presented the original deposit receipt for withdrawal of deposited amount in the bank for the purpose of education and marriage same was denied on one pretext or the other which amounts to gross deficiency in service by the bank.
12. The District Consumer Forum has further held that Branch Manager without any enquiry with respect to loss of original deposit receipt which was in the name of complainant in a most illegal and irregular manner issued the duplicate deposit receipt in the name of Satya Narayan  Vishwas who on basis of which was provided OD fodes facility initially for Rs. 1,24,000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 2,40,000/- which was a fraudulent act committed by Satya Narayan Vishwas in connivance with Branch Manager of the Bank. The Branch Manager in order to favour Satya Narayan Vishwas for extraneous consideration acted in a most unlawful manner and further directed the management to take appropriate action against the said manager for his illegal act as the Branch Manager was primarily found responsible for the misdeeds which denied the lawful claim of the complainant of legally payable amount and directed Bank of Baroda to pay a sum of Rs. 80,844/- to the complainant with interest @13% from 23.02.2002 and further directed to pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation within 2 months.
13. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Purnea in Complaint Case no. 40 of 2013 Bank of Baroda has filed this appeal before the State Commissions:
14. It is submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that complainant in connivance with his uncle planted a story on the strength of old deposit receipts which became useless paper after issuance of duplicate receipts. It was further submitted that uncle of complainant was a necessary party as such the complaint case was bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The Dispute being complicated in nature could not have been decided in a summary proceeding. The complaint case was time barred. It was lastly argued that for similar allegations complainant has lodged an FIR as such complaint case before consumer forum was not maintainable.
15. The counsel for the complainant/respondent has supported the judgment and order and submitted that there is no error or infirmity in the judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum as such does not require any interference by this Commission.
16. Heard the parties.
17. It is an admitted fact that the amount was deposited in the name of complainant in the year 1996 when complainant was a minor as such his uncle was made guardian. The natural guardian of a Hindu minor is mother in absence of his father. The complainant had attained majority in the year 2008 when on a false pretext that the original deposit receipt was lost a duplicate deposit receipt was created in favour of uncle of complainant by the Manager of the Bank of Baroda which itself was an fraudulent act to illegally favour uncle of complainant to grant him undue benefit whereas, the original deposit receipt was in the name of complainant and same was in his possession.
18. A duplicate deposit receipt was created by uncle of complainant with active connivance of the Branch Manager of BOB to provide OD facility on the basis of duplicate deposit receipt without any knowledge and consent of the complainant which is apparent as original deposit receipt was with complainant to the knowledge of his uncle Satya Narayan Vishwas and there was no occasion to prepare a duplicate deposit receipt on false pretext that the original deposit receipt was lost which establishes that complainant had no knowledge or information about duplicate deposited receipt issued in the name of his uncle.
19. Guardian of a minor is appointed to protect the interest of Minor and not to act against his interest. Once complainant attained majority guardianship automatically stood terminated and even after having knowledge that complainant has become major duplicate deposit receipt was issued in the name of Satya Narayan Vishwas although original was issued in the name of complainant which was in his possession.
20. Non payment of maturity amount is a continuing wrong as such complaint case was not time barred. Allegation is against Bank of Baroda for not paying the matured amount without any valid and legitimate reason which amounts to deficiency in service as such complaint case is not bad for non-joinder of Satya Narayan Vishwas uncle of complainant.
21. There is no bar in filing a complaint case before District Consumer Forum for realization of matured amount on account of deficiency in service as well as instituting criminal case for punishing the culprits for misappropriation and defalcation of same amount.
22. It is equally surprising that once Bank of Baroda agreed to make payment by letter dated 05.06.2013 send to complainant it cannot deny payment and ought to have admitted the claim of complainant before the District Consumer Forum and made the payment.
23. The facts of the case demonstrates that the Branch Manager of BOB in conspiracy with uncle of complainant had siphoned the matured fixed deposit amount of complainant and committed  criminal breach of trust but instead of taking any action against the Branch Manager, Bank Of Baroda has filed this frivolous and misconceived appeal and same is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be deposited by the Bank of Baroda in the account number 40851298384 of “Legal Aid to the Litigants“ maintained by State Commission in Patna High Court, within 60 days from the date of receipt production of a copy of order passed by this court. 

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                     (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                       President

Md. Fariduzzama