1.       This order shall dispose of all three revision petitions arising out of same impugned order in appeal Nos.516/2018, 517/2018 & 518/2018 filed by the petitioner (hereinafter called as “the Bank”) against the order of the District Forum in CC Nos.883/2017, 884/2017 & 885/2017 of the respondents (hereinafter called as “the Complainants”).

2.       Admitted facts of the case are that the complainants had put their money in three FDs, the nature of which was ‘two in one reinvestment deposit’, in the year 1998 on different dates. In November, 2017, they approached the Bank for encashment of the FDs and they were told that their FD amount was showing nil and refused to encash the FDs on the ground that they did not have any record. Three complaints were filed by the complainants. District Forum decided all the three complaints vide three separate orders dated 10.7.2018. All the complaints were allowed and the bank was directed to refund the amount of

-3-

FDRs with rate of interest from the date of deposit till its realization and also awarded compensation in each of the complaints to the tune of Rs.5,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.

3.       Being aggrieved, the bank filed three appeals. In the appeals the argument taken was that the complaints were barred by limitation and this issue was not considered by the District Forum. It was also argued that the record of the complainant was not kept by the bank which they were not obliged to keep after eight years as per rules and regulations of the bank and this fact was not considered by the District Forum and that the District Forum had wrongly put the liability upon the bank. Vide impugned order, the State Commission dismissed all the three appeals and the order of the District Forum was maintained. These revision petitions have been filed challenging the impugned order.

4.       Same contention which had been raised before the State Commission has been raised before this Commission as well. It is argued that the bank under the rules and regulations is not obliged to maintain the record of any customer beyond eight years from the date of last transaction and therefore there is nothing on record of the complainants with the bank and that is why no record could be produced before the District Forum and the State Commission in support of the contention that the FDs amount was adjusted against the shortfall of the saving account since they were two in one FDRs. It was also argued that

-4-

the FDR relates to the year 1998 and till the complaint was filed, there was no communication from the complainants and therefore, the complaints were barred by limitation being filed after 17 years and since this issue is not decided by the Fora below they have committed jurisdictional error.

5.       It is argued on behalf of the complainants that the Fora below had not committed any jurisdictional error because the complaints were not barred by limitation. It is submitted that the FDR were no doubt of two in one nature but they were “reinvestment deposit” meaning thereby that on their maturity automatically the bank was under obligation to reinvest the money into an FD and therefore there was no necessity for the complainants to approach the bank till the complainants needed the money and wanted to encash the FDs. It is also submitted that during this period no communication was received from the bank about any adjustment of the FDs in the saving bank account shortfall. It is further submitted that it is also not informed by the bank as to when the last adjustment was done by the bank. It is argued that it cannot be said that because the cause of action arose in the year 1999 when the FDs were first got matured because under the instructions issued by the complainant the bank was to reinvest the maturity amount in the year 1999 and also in the subsequent years. It is submitted that the cause of action was continuing one. It is submitted that it is for the bank to show as to on which date they stopped reinvesting the money deposited in FD on the ground that they had adjusted the FD amount against the

-5-

 irregularity in the saving bank account of the complainants. It is submitted that in view of this the argument that complaint was barred by limitation has no merit on the facts and circumstances of this case. It is further argued that in para-2 of their reply the bank has already admitted that “as per the nature of the fixed deposit, the same had to be reinvested automatically until the customer/complainant approaches to encash the same.” It is argued that in the light of this admission, if they had adjusted the FD amount against any other account of the complainant, they should have done it only as per the instructions of the complainants and they have failed to produce on record any document to show that they had any instruction from the complainants. It is further argued that no document of such adjustment has been shown. It is further argued that since there is no jurisdictional error in this case, this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences on record and substitute its own opinion.

6.       I have heard the arguments and perused the relevant record. It is settled proposition of law that under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this Commission has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences on record and then substitute its own opinion to that of the opinion of the Fora below especially when the findings of the Fora below on the facts of the evidences are concurrent findings. It has been so held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance

-6-

Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 that the Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora have committed any jurisdictional error or findings are perverse. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: -

“13.        Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

7.       Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“23.           The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

-7-

8.       It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Fora below has committed jurisdictional error since it has failed to consider that the complaint was barred by limitation because the cause of action arose in the year 1999 when the FDs were adjusted towards the shortfall in the saving bank account in the year 1998-1999. Reliance is placed on documents at page Nos.55 and 56 of the paper book and it is submitted that the cause of action for filing the complaints arose in the year 1999.

9.       I have perused the documents. The document at pages 55 & 56 itself seems to be an archive record which is a compilation of various records of its customers and there is no document produced to show the basis of preparing this document. Moreover, this document only shows the balance in the saving account number and find no mention of the adjustment of the FD amount against saving bank account. Therefore, this argument of learned counsel that the FD amount was adjusted against the saving bank account, finds no support from this document. From the nature of FD it is clear that it was a reinvestment deposit FD meaning thereby that on its maturity, bank has to automatically keep on reinvesting the maturity amount into fresh FD till the FD holder asked for encashment of the FD.

10.     In view of this, it cannot be said that the cause of action arose in the year 1999  as  argued  by  learned  counsel  for  the  petitioner. Cause of action was

-8-

continuing one and continued till the complainants asked for the encashment of their FDs. The argument, therefore, that the Fora below committed jurisdictional error has no merit.

11.     As held earlier, this Commission cannot substitute its opinion on the concurrent findings of the fact of the Fora below. The present revision petitions have no merit an d the same are dismissed with no order as to cost.