APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON :  15^th DECEMBER 2017

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

          This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.04.2008, passed by the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in consumer complaint No. 40/2004, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

2.       The appellant/complainant is a Non-Resident Indian (NRI) practicing medicine in U.S.A.  He is stated to have opened an FCNR (Foreign Currency Non Resident) Account in Balanagar Branch of the OP Canara Bank vide FCNR-KDR No. 625/1/98 by depositing a sum of US$50,000/- on 21.01.1998.  The said fixed deposit was for a period of 12 months and carrying interest @5.37% p.a. with quarterly rests from 21.01.98 to 20.01.99.  There was facility of automatic renewal for the said deposit.  Another fixed deposit certificate No. FCNR-KDR No. 6.99 dated 24.09.99 showing amount of US$ 54292.62 with interest @5.1% p.a. from 24.09.99 was also issued, the date of maturity being 24.03.2000 and carrying the facility for automatic renewal.  The complainant had authorised the bank to keep his FCNR deposit as guarantee for the loan borrowed by M/s. Sri Harsha Builders of which his mother Naga Rathnamma and brother N. Bhaskar Rao were partners.  However, the Bank did not advance any loan to the above firm. 

3.       The opposite party (OP) No. 3, N. Suneeta is stated to be the estranged wife of the brother of the complainant, Bhaskar Rao.  The said OP-3 is stated to have obtained loan from the said Bank for a sum of ₹15,40,000/-.  The issue involved in the present consumer complaint is that the OP Bank adjusted the FCNR deposit of the complainant against the loan obtained by the OP-3 N. Suneeta.  The Bank has taken the stand that the said adjustment was made, based on proper authorisation given by the complainant, whereas the case of the complainant is that he had never given such authorisation to the Bank.  According to the Bank, a pledge letter dated 21.01.1998 was executed by the complainant, according to which, FCNR 625/1/98 was to act as guarantee for the loan taken by N. Suneeta.   The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question against the Bank and N. Suneeta, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of US$69563.77 with interest @12% p.a. from the date of the order till realisation and also to pay a sum of ₹1 lakh as compensation for mental agony etc.

4.       The complaint was resisted by the OP Canara Bank by filing a written version before the State Commission, in which they denied the allegations made by the complainant.  It was stated that the complainant had admittedly offered his FCNR deposit as guarantee for the loan of ₹15,40,000/- availed by the OP-3 N. Suneeta and that he had even executed a pledge letter in respect of the said loan transaction.  The complainant was fully aware of the adjustment of loan amount out of the FCNR deposit made by him and he did not raise any dispute at the relevant time in this regard.  The OP-3 N. Suneeta developed strained relations with her husband and brother of the complainant and since then, the complainant had started seeking restitution of the amount in question.  The complainant had also sent a FAX message dated 25.12.2000 to the Bank, giving instructions to discharge the FCNR deposit before maturity and credit the proceeds to his account.  It was also instructed that the deposit amount should be transferred to SB account 31422 of N. Suneeta wife of his brother.  It was wrong on the part of the complainant to take the plea that these documents were forged.  The Bank further stated that it was incorrect to state that the complainant had authorised them to keep his FCNR deposit as guarantee to the loan to be borrowed by M/s. Harsha Builders.  In fact, no such loan had been advanced to M/s. Harsha Builders and hence, the question of keeping the FCNR deposit as security did not arise. 

5.       After taking into account the averments of the parties, the State Commission dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 15.04.2008.  The State Commission concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, as they had adjusted the maturity amount of the fixed deposit towards the outstanding loan amount of N. Suneeta as per the instructions of the complainant.  Being aggrieved against the said order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present first appeal. 

6.       During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the appellant stated at the outset that the case should be remanded to the State Commission in order to find out whether the documents supposed to have been executed by the complainant, giving instructions to the Bank to adjust the maturity proceeds of the FCNR deposit towards the repayment of loan of N. Suneeta, were genuine documents or not.  In fact, the Bank had forged these documents in coalition with N. Suneeta, the estranged wife of the brother of the complainant.  It was the duty of the State Commission to have obtained the opinion of an handwriting expert to ascertain whether the pledge letter etc. were genuine documents.  According to the learned counsel, the documents seemed to be forged, even when seen by naked eye.  The signatures on these documents were different from the standard signatures made by the complainant.  The State Commission had observed in their order that complicated questions were involved in this case, but still they decided the case against the complainant.  They should have referred the matter for adjudication to the Civil Court.  The learned counsel prayed that the State Commission should take a decision again by going into depth of the matter with regard to the genuineness of the documents purported to have been executed by the complainant, or the matter should be left to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the complicated question of law and facts.  The complainant has stated in his evidence affidavit also that he never gave any such authorisation to the Bank. 

7.       The learned counsel for the OP Bank stated that OP-3 N. Suneeta stated before the State Commission that she had no knowledge about the alleged transaction pertaining to FCNR deposit of the complainant.  In fact, her husband used to take her to the Bank and made her to sign on various documents.  She simply signed blank papers and blank cheques as directed by her husband.  The learned counsel further stated that the Bank had adjusted the maturity amount of the fixed deposit in the loan account of N. Suneeta.  The complainant, if aggrieved, could proceed against the said N. Suneeta to recover his money from her.  There was no reason to burden the Bank with the liability as demanded by the complainant.  The Bank had simply followed the instructions given to them by the complainant.  They had no objection if the matter was got adjudicated by civil court of competent jurisdiction.

8.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

9.       A careful perusal of the material placed on record indicates that according to the OP Bank, the complainant executed pledge letter dated 21.01.98 and necessary documents permitting the Bank to adjust the maturity amount of the fixed deposit towards the amount borrowed by N. Suneeta, wife of his brother Bhaskar Rao.  The Bank produced the third party letter of pledge dated 21.01.1998 executed by the complainant before the State Commission.  The Bank also filed a letter dated 25.12.2000 sent by the complainant on his letterhead, instructing the Bank to transfer the amount in S.B. Account No. 31422 of N. Suneeta.  The case of the complainant is that these documents are forged documents.  The complainant could have very well produced an handwriting expert in his favour to provide evidence that the signatures on these documents were not made by him.  It is now being stated on behalf of the complainant in appeal that the State Commission should have got the signatures on these documents compared with the standard signatures of the complainant maintained in the Bank.  It is not understood, however, as to why the complainant himself did not take the initiative to produce such handwriting expert.  It has nowhere been made clear as to why the OP Bank, which is a public sector Bank, would have resorted to the creation of forged documents in order to support their action of adjustment of the maturity amount towards the loan amount of the OP-3.  The proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are summary in nature and the consumer fora are supposed to arrive at a proper conclusion, based on the material available on record. 

10.     Further, it has been made clear in the order of the State Commission itself that as per letter dated 18.05.2002 sent by the Bank to the complainant, it was informed by the Bank that the FCNR deposit that matured on 21.01.99, its proceeds were adjusted to the loan amount of N. Suneeta, based on the third party pledge letter executed by the complainant and the surplus proceeds of ₹3,87,185/- were kept in an NRE Account for 6 months.  The Bank further stated that based on the FAX message dated 25.12.2000 of the complainant on his letterhead, they had closed the NRE Account as well before maturity and transferred the proceeds to the account of N. Suneeta on 29.12.2000.  Although the letter was sent by the Bank on 18.05.2002, the complainant did not take any action on the same and issued the legal notice after about one year, i.e., 13.05.2003.  In case, the appellant was aggrieved by the action of the Bank, he could have immediately proceeded against the Bank as per law / procedure.  No explanation has been given by the complainant as to why he refrained from acting against the Bank promptly, if he felt that the Bank had taken action based on any forged documents.  The complainant is a well-educated person involved in medical profession and he was expected to proceed against the Bank immediately. 

11.     Based on the discussion above, it is evident that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is ordered to be dismissed.  The impugned order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind and the same is ordered to be confirmed.  There shall be no order as to costs.