Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/18/641

Major Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Complainant in person

21 Mar 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:641 dated 18.10.2018.                                                         Date of decision: 21.03.2022. 

Major Singh Jambh S/o. Sh. Chanan Singh, R/o. House No.BA/0846, Bank Colony, Mandi Mullanpur, Distt. Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chandermukhi Nariman Point, Mumbai.

2. General Manager (Field), Central Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bank Square, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh.

3. Deputy General Manager (Senior Regional Manager), Central Bank of India, Regional Office, K.P. Complex, Ferozepur Road, Near Park Plaza, Ludhiana.

4. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mullanpur Dakha Branch, Distt. Ludhiana.

                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

          Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate

For OPs                          :         Sh. Pardeep Arora, Advocate.

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is maintaining savings bank (pension) account No.3262132039 with the OPs where his pension is also being credited. There was an outstanding credit balance of Rs.1,36,423.57 as on 01.01.2018 in the said account. However, the OPs debited a sum of Rs.50,346/-  in the aid account on 04.01.2018 without any authority or consent of the complainant. This came to the notice of the complainant on 16.01.2018 when he visited Mullanpur branch of the OPs to withdraw the cash amount of Rs.50,000/- but he was told that there was insufficient balance in the said account. The complainant was compelled to get his FDR prematurely encashed to make the payments and suffered a loss of Rs.2254/- due to premature encashment of the FDR, the maturity date of which was 13.03.2018. On 20.01.2018, the complainant requested the branch manager to reverse the debit entry of Rs.50,348/- but to no avail. Subsequent reminders dated 06.02.2018 and 04.04.2018 also failed to evoke positive response from the OPs. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and the act and omission of the OPs has caused financial loss as well as pain and agony to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs.50,348/- and Rs.2254/- with interest along with damages of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OPs. In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the OPs, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable nor the complainant falls within the definition of consumer. Moreover, Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, who is joint holder of the savings account, has not been made a party in this case. According to the OPs, the amount of Rs.50,348/- was rightly debited with the joint account of the complainant and his wife Bhupinder Kaur. As the said amount was inadvertently and mistakenly paid/deposited in the account of the complainant and the complainant was legally bound to refund the same as per law. The OPs have further pleaded that the complainant and his wife Bhupinder Kaur deposited money with the OPs in the shape of Money Multiplier Deposits Certificate (MMDC) as per following details:

Sr. No.	MMDC No.	Issuance date	Date of maturity	Total amount paid by the Bank in violation of the guidelines	Excess amount of interest paid on MMDC till 04.01.2018, which has been recovered
1.	3282022861	04.09.2013	17.10.2017	Rs.1,42,841/-	Rs.5040/-
2.	3282023263	04.09.2013	20.06.2017	Rs.1,39,236/-	Rs.4616/-
3.	3282021471	04.09.2013	01.12.2017	Rs.1,44,240/-	Rs.5205/-
4.	3282020422	04.09.2013	26.12.2017	Rs.1,45,032/-	Rs.5298/-
5.	3282021006	04.09.2013	25.01.2018	Rs.1,45,983/-	Rs.4268/-
6.	3500449773	16.11.2015	16.11.2016	Rs.2,18,410/-	Rs.2068/-
7.	3500451023	16.11.2015	Yet to be matured	-	Rs.4754/-
8.	3281999020	30.03.2017	26.03.2018	Rs.1,52,982/-	Rs.4781/-
9.	3282004681	30.03.2017	03.04.2018	-	Rs.47821/-
10.	3282005040	04.09.2013	Yet to be matured	-	Rs.4781/-
11.	3500450563	16.11.2015	Yet to be matured	-	Rs.4754/-

 

According to the OPs on the aforesaid deposits, inadvertently, additional interest of 1% was also paid whereas as per the circular of the bank dated 19.06.2014, the additional interest of 1% to staff members and their exclusive associations  was not payable because the wife of the complainant was holding said deposits jointly with the complainant and the name of the wife of the complainant figured as first holder of the deposits and, therefore, the facility of 1% additional interest admissible to staff members was not payable to the complainant and his wife as per guidelines/circular dated 19.06.2014. Therefore, the amount of Rs.50,346/- which was paid in excess to the complainant and his wife was debited into his account. It cannot be said to be deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit Ex. RB of Sh. Jasraman Singh Bedi, Branch Manager of OP4 branch along with documents Ex. R1 to Ex. R11and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the deduction of Rs.50,348/- has been un-authorizedly made and without informing the complainant. No prior notice was issued to the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has further pointed out that the complainant sent letter Ex. C5 to Ex. C8 to the OPs which were not responded to by them till date. The counsel for the complainant has further contended that the amount could not have been withdrawn. The counsel for the complainant has further argued that the so called notification was issued by the bank in the year 2014 and despite that the extra interest of 1% was paid to the complainant. Thus, this was an act of negligence on the part of the officials of the OP bank who should be penalized and not the complainant. The counsel for the complainant has further requested to allow the complaint, as prayed for.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that since the FDRs have been issued in the name of Bhupinder Kaur wife of the complainant jointly with the complainant and as Bhupinder Kaur was the first holder, as per circular Ex. R1, the extra interest of1% was not payable to the spouse of the complainant. Under the circumstances, according to the counsel for the OPs, the additional interest of 1% paid on the FDRs has been withdrawn and debited into the account of the complainant. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that even otherwise as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, a person to whom the money has been paid by mistake is supposed to repay and return it. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that in the given circumstances, the present complaint is without any merits and deserves to be dismissed. 

8.                We have weighed the contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and gone through the record carefully.

9.                On minute perusal of the notification Ex. R1, it emerges that the additional interest of 1% on deposit of bank’s staff and their exclusive associates is admissible/payable only if a member or a retired member of the bank’s staff either singly or jointly with staff’s name as the 1^st name in the account, with any member or members of his/her family holds the account. Admittedly, in the case of the complainant, in the so called FDRs/MMDCs, the name of the complainant does not figure as the first name. It is further not disputed that the FDRs/MMDCs carry the name of the wife of the complainant Bhupinder Kaur jointly with the complainant and Bhupinder Kaur’s name figures on the top as the first name. Inadvertently, this was not noticed by the officials of the bank with the result that the additional interest of 1% was duly paid in the account though it was not payable as per the notification Ex. R1. The said amount of excessive 1% interest amounting to Rs.50,346/- was subsequently debited into the account of the complainant on 04.01.2018. Since the amount was not payable, it has been rightly withdrawn by the OP bank. It is not disputed by either of the parties that only the additional interest of 1% has been withdrawn and no interest etc. has been charged. Even otherwise, as per provisions of Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, any amount which has been paid to a person under mistake, as is the case in the instant complaint, the person receiving such amount is liable to refund the same. Therefore, there cannot be said to be an illegality on the part of the OPs if they debited the amount in the account of the complainant after it was detected that it was mistakenly/inadvertently paid. The arguments that no prior notice or opportunity of being heard was not given to the complainant prior to debiting the amount of Rs.50,346/- does not seem to be holding any water considering the fact that factually speaking the amount was not due and inadvertently paid in excess which was subsequently debited. There is no dispute with regard to the calculation of this amount as no such plea has been made in the complaint in this regard. Therefore, in our considered view, the complainant has failed to make out a case of any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs on account of withdrawal of Rs.50,346/- from the account of the complainant which was inadvertently paid in excess under a bonafide mistake.

10.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

11.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Major Singh Jambh Vs Chairman Central Bank of India                    CC/18/641

Present:       Sh. Sarup Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Pardeep Arora, Advocate for OPs.

 

                   The counsel for the complainant has filed an application seeking direction to the OPs to produce the receipt and dispatch register and summary details of amount of Rs.50,346/- unauthorizedly debited into his account. As both the parties have already closed their respective evidence, the application at this stage is not maintainable and is summarily dismissed.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:21.03.2022.

Gobind Ram.