Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 31.12.2016
Smt. Karishma Mandal
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite party to pay the interest @ 18% P.A. on the above said deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- since 09.03.1998.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant has asserted that he deposited Rs. 6,00,000/- with the opposite party Bank as a term deposit on 09.01.1998 for two months maturity. The complainant thereafter contacted for renewal of TDR as at that time due to posting as DDC Kaimur he could not get time to contact the opposite party. After transfer from Kaimur to Patna, complainant submitted a letter on 03.03.2001 addressed to Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna requestinghim to direct the concerned Branch Manager to fix amount of above TDR for a period of its maturity i.e. 09.03.1998. The Assistant General Manager, allowed the request of the complainant on 07.03.2001 and gave detailed instruction in writing on the letter submitted by the complainant. The aforesaid letter was filed before Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna on 24.06.2006 which was replied by Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch, Patna vide letter no. PB/23/06-07 dated 03.07.2006 and informed the complainant that payment was made on 12.03.2001. The complainant thereafter filed a complaint before banking Ombudsman State of Bihar and Jharkhand who did not consider the point of view of the complainant and directed to close the file and thereafter this complaint has been filed in this Forum.
On behalf of opposite party Bank detailed written statement has been filed stating therein that complainant had deposited Rs. 6,00,000/- on 09.01.1998 for a term deposit (TDR) with two months maturity. The said TDR was renewed from time to time and finally paid to the complainant on 12.03.2001.
It has been further stated by opposite party that the complainant had submitted a letter on 03.04.2001 for renewal of TDR whereas the full and final settlement of TDR was done on 12.03.2001. The complainant had availed several times demand loan facility on the said TDR and on 28.02.2001 had requested for an overdraft limit of Rs. 1,25,000/- against TDR. The rules which govern the overdraft amount against specified security (such as TDR) etc. says that on maturity of specified security the overdraft amount will be liquidated by the maturity proceeds of the said security.
It has been further stated in Para – 11 and 12 of written statement that as per rule governing overdraft account on maturity, the proceeds of TDR was credited to the overdraft account and the said account was closed and hence the final payment was made on 12.03.2001 after adjusting the CA overdraft taken by the complainant on 29.02.2001and the balance was credited in the saving account no. 01190005767. In Para – 13 of the written statement it has been stated by the opposite party Bank that the request letter represented by the complainant regarding renewal of term deposit was dated 03.04.2001 and it was not possible for the Bank to renew the said TDR when full and final payment had already been made on 12.03.2001.
It appears from the record that both sides hotly contended this case earlier in this Forum and this Forum vide order dated 09.12.2013 has held as follows, “ we find that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Bank.”
“in view of the aforesaid facts the instant complaint case is dismissed. However in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to cost.”
After dismissal of aforementioned case by this Forum, it appears that the complainant preferred an appeal before Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna being appeal no. 10 of 2014 (Raghunandan Prasad Vrs. Assistant General Manager). The Hon’ble commission after hearing both the parties remanded this case to this district Forum for reconsidering the point raised by the parties vide order dated 10.06.2015 passed in appeal no. 10 of 2014 referred above.
It appears that the order dated 10.06.2015 passed in appeal no. 10 of 2014 by the Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna was challenged by the opposite party before Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 04.11.2015 passed in Revision Petition no. 2376 of 2015 have been pleased to dismiss the aforesaid Revision in limine. Hence the aforesaid order passed by Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna remained intact.
In the light of aforementioned direction of Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna as well as National Dispute Redressal Commission this case was heard.
On behalf of complainant it has been submitted that the complainant has brought on record master circular which supports the case of the complainant.
It has been further submitted by the complainant that appeal has been allowed by the Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna which has been confermed by Hon’ble National Commission and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party has already been established by Hon’ble Commission but question of compensation has been left to be awarded by this Forum.
On behalf of opposite party Bank it has been submitted that no notice was required to be made to the complainant since the fact remains that the loan amount of the complainant was out standing on the due date of deposit and after the date of maturity i.e. 09.03.2001 the same was liquidated as per rule and final payment was made by the opposite party on 12.03.2001 in his SB account no. 01190005767 since no specific instruction was received by the complainant on due date of TDR i.e. 09.03.2001.
During the hearing, both sides repeated their old submissions and the same facts which they have already filed in their written argument etc.
No new fact have been brought on the record and no new submission have been made rather both sides repeated the old facts and submissions.
The Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna in order dated 10.06.2015 passed in appeal no. 10 of 2014 referred above has observed as follows, “having considered the submissions of both sides and on perusal of the order passed by the District Consumer Forum as also material available on record it appears that the District Forum has considered all aspects of the matter except how the respondent – Bank made final payment of the TDR adjusting the overdraft of Rs. 1.25 Lacs which was not even communicated to the appellant has not been considered. It seems that a deficiency on the part of the respondent Bank.”
It further transpires that Hon’ble National Dispute Redressal Commission in order dated 04.11.2015 has been pleased to affirm the aforementioned finding of the State Forum.
In our view as the Hon’ble State Dispute Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna has observed that it seems, “ A deficiency on the part of opposite party Bank” hence this Forum has no jurisdiction to record finding other wise and hence we have no option but to allow this appeal and as such this appeal is allowed and we find and hold that deficiency is on the part of opposite party Bank.
Thus we direct the opposite party Bank to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lack only ) by way of compensation to the complainant within the period of two months from the date of communication of this order or production of certified copy of this order failing which the aforesaid amount will carry an interest @ 10% P.A. till its final payment is made.
We further direct the opposite party Bank to pay Rs. 10,000/- ( Rs. Ten Thousand only ) by way of litigation costs to the complainant within the aforesaid period of two months as the complainant has been unnecessarily harassed.
Accordingly this petition stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member President
