Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/965

MADANLAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SH. U.DAYAL

06 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL  

                           

FIRST APPEAL NO. 965 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 25.04.2012 passed in C.C.No. 214/2008 by District Commission, Dhar)

 

MADANLAL,

S/O SHRI SHIV SHANKAR SHUKLA,

R/O 99, ADARSH NAGAR COLONY,

BADWAH, DISTRICT-KHARGONE (M.P.)                                         ...        APPELLANT

 

                      Versus

 

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

BRANCH-DHAMNOD,

DISTRICT-DHAR (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 Umeshwar Dayal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the respondent.

             

O R D E R

(Passed On 08.08.2022)

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

                         This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 25.04.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dhar (for short ‘District Commission’) in

C.C.No.214/2008, whereby his complaint has been returned with direction to file it before the appropriate court.

-2-

2.                The facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant/appellant are that the complainant/appellant and his wife had a joint savings bank account no. 3402 with the opposite party/respondent bank. The complainant and his wife jointly opened two TDRs (Fixed Deposit) account nos. 310497 & 310499 for a sum of Rs.1,13,869/- each for a period of 60 months but there is a difference of Rs.4,000/- in their maturity amount. It is further submitted that on 05.02.2002 the complainant retired from his job and he deposited the retirement amount of Rs.2,00,000/- in their joint savings bank account no. 3402. On earlier passbook being lost, the bank had given new passbook in which the amount of Rs.2,05,386/- was shown as on 19.02.2005. It is alleged that 16.12.2006 when he approached the bank for withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- he came to know that there is only Rs.1,416/- is in the savings bank account. It is alleged that the bank with conspiracy someone withdrawn the aforesaid amount and has committed deficiency in service. On the same day he also came to know that against the TDRs, someone with conspiracy of the bank took loan of Rs.1,00,000/-. When he sought copies of documents, the bank refused to provide the same.  He therefore filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

3.                The opposite party bank denied all the allegations made in the complaint. It is submitted no cause of action arose on 16.12.2006 and

-3-

therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant retired as a senior police officer and if there was any fraud or forgery regarding withdrawal of amount from his savings bank account, he must have lodged a complaint with the police. The complainants themselves applied for closure of TDRs and made a request that the maturity amount be deposited in their savings bank account. Mostly the complainant’s wife Smt. Rani Devi Shukla used to come for bank transaction i.e. for deposition and withdrawal, the complainant came to the bank rarely. The bank is working as per RBI guidelines and keeping account books maintained regularly. It is denied that the bank employees with conspiracy with someone had withdrawn the amount. The bank has not committed any deficiency in service. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

4.                The District Commission after appreciating facts and circumstances of the matter held that the dispute involved in the complaint is regarding criminal in nature and in summary proceedings, no investigation can be carried out regarding criminal case as the complainant alleged forgery. The District Commission further held that the opposite party bank cannot he held guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The District Commission therefore dismissed the complaint.

5.                Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents filed by the parties as also the record.

-4-

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant never took the loan against the TDRs and despite proving the aforesaid fact, the District Commission did not consider this aspect. The District Commission without examining the handwriting expert report wrongly dismissed the complaint. In case of transaction of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,00,000/- the bank ought to have reasonable care as per RBI guidelines which itself shows that the bank has committed deficiency in service. The matter was neither complicated nor of civil nature, even then the District Commission while dismissing the complaint committed legal error. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed and the complainant be given relief as sought in the complaint.

7.                Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party/respondent bank argued that without comparing the signatures of the complainant with the specimen signatures available with the bank, the amount was not paid it appears that the complainant with conspiracy of someone else, himself has withdrawn the amount through cheque. On complaint being received from the complainant, the bank checked its accounts and found that his wife Smt. Rani Devi Shukla withdrawn the amount. He argued that the forgery/genuineness as alleged is an issue which involved complicated question of facts and law and involves a lot of evidence and detailed enquiry

 

-5-

which cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction. The District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

8.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties an on careful perusal of the evidence available on record we find that the complainant himself on its own had filed an handwriting expert report stating that his wife Smt. Rani Devi Shukla neither withdrawn the amount from the savings bank account nor took loan of Rs.1.00 lac towards TDRs. It is further observed that the bank has filed documents including the appreciation letter given by the complainant to the bank and the copies of accounts provided to complainant as also the information sought by the complainant under RTI.

9.                The bank has filed affidavit of Shri B. D. Sharma, Manager of the opposite party/respondent bank stating therein that it is not true that loan was obtained against their TDRs by forgery. It is also denied that with the conspiracy of bank the amount was withdrawn from the savings bank account. The complainant had given appreciation letter dated 08.01.2008 to the bank regarding its good services. The complainant himself retired from the post of senior police officer, and if there was forgery, he must have lodged the police complaint. Thus the bank has performed its duties and it cannot be said that the bank has committed deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.

 

-6-

10.              As per case of the complainant/appellant, the respondent bank employees in conspiracy with third party have withdrawn the amount and took loan against the TDRs whereas the bank says that it was the complainant/appellant had withdrawn the amount and took loan against the TDRs. As per pleadings of the complainant that loan was obtained by forged signature of his wife. It is pertinent to mention here that if the complainant found that by forgery his amount was withdrawn and loan was obtained with conspiracy of bank, then why he did not file a police complaint.  The complainant made allegations of cheating and fraud against the bank. In view of these facts and allegations made by the complainant, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone as the matter regarding allegation of cheating, fraud and forgery cannot be entertained by the Consumer For a constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

11.              In the reply, it has been specifically mentioned by the opposite party bank that the complainant and his wife wrote a letter dated 03.03.2007 signed by them (At page no.134) addressed to the then Manager of the bank to close the TDR account and the amount be transferred to their savings bank account and nothing is due towards the said TDRs. Similar statement has been given by the Manager, B. D. Sharma in his affidavit. We have gone through the said letter, we find that in the said letter, Smt. Rani Devi Shukla

-7-

has stated that she along with her husband Madanlal Shukla and two witnesses Shri Chhotelal Chaudhary and Shri Madan Singh Thakur was present in the bank and she had further stated that she had received cheques of balance amount of Rs.14,175.90/- & Rs.15,262/- of TDRs after adjustment of loan taken against TDRs and nothing remains to be paid towards TDRs.  She had further stated that after depositing the said amount in the savings bank account, total amount Rs.29,400/- be paid in cash to them. 

12.              Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that looking to the present facts and circumstances, the bank has not committed deficiency in service as the bank made payment at the request of the appellant or his wife.

13.              Thus, we find that the District Commission has nowhere erred in dismissing the complaint. The impugned order which is passed after considering evidence and facts and circumstances of the case does not call for any interference.

14.              In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  There shall be no order as to costs.

 

         (A. K. Tiwari)    (Dr. Srikant Pandey)   (D. K. Shrivastava)

    Presiding Member           Member                    Member