M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 1927 OF 2010

(Arising out of order dated 05.08.2010 passed in C.C.No.96/2008 by District Commission, Neemuch)

1. ANIL KUMAR S/O ANOKHELAL GOSWAMI,    

2. SMT. MADHUBALA, W/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR GOSWAMI,

    BOTH R/O 467, VIKAS NAGAR, 14/2

    NEEMUCH (MP)                                                                                         … APPELLANTS.

Versus

BRANCH MANAGER,

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

NEAR KAMAL CHOWK,

NEEMUCH (M.P.)                                                                                           …. RESPONDENT.   

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

            HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA   :          MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Vikas Rai, learned counsel for the appellants.

           None for the respondent.

 O R D E R

(Passed On  25.07.2022)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

                   This appeal by the complainants/appellants is directed against the order dated 05.08.2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Neemuch (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.96/2008 whereby the complaint filed by the complainants/appellants has been dismissed.

-2-

2.                The case of the complainants is such that they under the Centsuper Term Deposit Scheme jointly deposited Rs.50,000/- in term deposit account no. 360164 for the period 17.03.2007 to 22.09.2008. On 22.09.2008, maturity amount of Rs.57,424/- was to be paid by the opposite party-bank to the complainants. On 11.07.2007 they obtained loan of Rs.20,000/- against the said deposit on which account no. DL-434 was opened and the said TDR was kept by the bank. The said loan amount with interest i.e. Rs.20,056/- was repaid by them on 21.07.2007 and the loan account was closed. It is alleged that on 22.09.2008 i.e. the maturity date of said term deposit, when they approached the bank to get maturity amount Rs.57,424 they were told by the bank that Rs.22,299/- were outstanding against the loan obtained by them and after adjustment of said outstanding amount, remaining amount will be paid, whereas they had already repaid the loan amount on 21.07.2007. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants had filed a complaint seeking relief of Rs.50,000/- deposited in fixed deposit with interest @24% p.a. and compensation Rs.10,000/-.

3.                The opposite party resisted the complaint stating that the on 21.07.2007 submitted the withdrawal form for withdrawal of Rs.20,056/- from their savings bank account no.9195 and deposit slip to deposit the same in loan account no.DL-434 to the concerned officer of the bank. Taking cognizance of the same, the concerned officer of the bank made an endorsement on back of TDR and returned the same to the complainants but by mistake the said vouchers (withdrawal & deposit slip) were cancelled by the concerned official, in fact, neither the amount of Rs.20,056/- was withdrawn from savings bank account nor

-3-

deposited in loan account and therefore, the loan amount remained unpaid and still to be recovered from the complainants. On making adjustment of outstanding loan amount against the maturity amount of TDR, the bank has not committed any deficiency in service and request to dismiss the complaint has been made.

4.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of evidence on record, the District Commission dismissed the complaint observing that there is no deficiency in service on part of the bank found that loan amount with interest alleged to have been deposited by the complainants on 21.07.2007 was not repaid.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the record.

6.                 Both parties have filed documents. Complainant no.1 Anil Kumar has filed his affidavit. Shri S. M. Jain, Bank Officer has also filed his affidavit. We have gone through the documents filed by the parties. At page no. 40 copy of cancelled withdrawal slip from savings bank account no.9195 and deposit slip to deposit in DL-434 regarding Rs.20,056/- are there. At page 43, there is statement of savings bank account no. 9195, at page 44, there is statement of loan account no. DL-434 and at page 45, there is list of cancelled entries. On perusal of the cancelled withdrawal slip, deposit slip as also the statements of savings bank account and loan account, we find that no transaction took place, neither the amount of Rs.20,056/- was withdrawn from the savings bank account no. 9195 nor the amount was deposited in loan account no. DL-434.  The said slips were cancelled by the bank officer by mistake which is proved from the list of cancelled entries. To this effect, the bank official S. M. Jain, Bank officer has filed his affidavit.

-4-

However, since the bank officer made an endorsement on back of TDR that the loan amount was paid, the complainants claimed the maturity amount by misusing the said endorsement on back of the TDR.  In fact, the loan amount is still pending and in such circumstances, we are of a considered view that the bank has committed no deficiency in service in offering to pay the maturity amount after adjustment of loan amount.

7.                The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the complainants. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by this Commission. Accordingly, it is affirmed.

8.                In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.