This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner,  Central Bank of India  against the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by the  State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short, ‘State Commission’) in  FA No. 23/2014.

2.       Brief facts of the case are that respondent/complainant had made a fixed deposit of Rs.70,000/- with the petitioner/OP bank for a period of 45 days on 27.2.1997.  It is the case of the complainant that due to his forgetfulness, he could not get payment of the Fixed Deposit (FD)  in time and when he contacted the bank, no satisfactory answer was given about payment of the FD.  Complainant filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman where the bank’s officials submitted the relevant records whatever available with them  and on the basis of those  records, the Banking Ombudsman could not reach to any conclusion whether payment was made by the bank or not paid. It was advised by the Banking Ombudsman that the disposal of the complaint would require evidence which can only be taken by an appropriate court. Then,  the complainant filed complaint bearing no. CC/301/12 before the District Forum. The complaint was resisted by the OP Bank by filing written statement. It was stated that the FD was made in the year 1997 and the computerization of record was started  in the year 2002 and old records are not available.  Finally the District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 1.10.2013 which reads as under:

“Records are not traceable. As per their policy record will kept for 10 years and requested for giving more time  for tracing the record though admittedly it has been destroyed. When the complainant is expected to keep the original FDR in  safe custody for getting encashment after so many years, how could the bank as public authority can destroy records of departments without keeping a copy of record. The seeking of more time is only to litigate . We hold OP guilty of deficiency in service rendered and direct OP to pay Rs.70,000/- with interest on F.D. as applicable from time to time in last 15 years as per RBI guidelines. Pay compensation of Rs.15,000/- for harassment and mental agony.”

3.       Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum,  the OP bank preferred an appeal bearing No. FA/23/2014 before the State Commission which was dismissed vide its order dated 11.5.2017.

4.       Hence, the present revision petition.

5.       Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.       Learned counsel  for the petitioner bank stated that after the computerization in 2002, the records of the year 1993 are not traceable in the bank, however, the bank has been able to trace one indemnity bond  which pertains to the FD of the petitioner but this copy is not signed by the petitioner nor by any bank official and also does not bear any date. It was further submitted that the complainant had filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman, however Bank Ombudsman could not reach to any conclusion and it was advised that the complainant may approach the relevant court. Accordingly, the complaint was filed. Learned counsel drew my attention to the first letter given  by the petitioner dated 10.4.2010 wherein the complainant has stated as follows:

        “I took term FD No.185581 dt. 14.4.97 (Bearing No.21/395) amount Rs.70,000/- (Rs. Seventy thousand only)  for 45 days (attached)

       In the interim period of almost 13 years, I lost receipt of the said FD, I am sure I have not taken money.

     …. Though I request that the same amount may please be credited in my account with interest as applicable.”

7.       Later on,  in the legal notice dated 2.3.2012,  the complainant changed his stand that the complainant due to memory loss and forgetfulness, could not submit the fixed deposit for payment before the Bank. It was argued by learned counsel that the complainant  has not given any clear reason why he could not submit the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for payment. In one application he has written that he was not sure whether he has taken the payment  and in the other, the complainant has taken the stand that due to memory loss, he could not submit FD for payment.  The Bank also could not verify after 13 years of the maturity of the fixed deposit whether the payment was taken by the complainant or not. The only relevant paper available with the bank is  the indemnity bond which indicates that the complainant had taken the payment on the ground that the FDR was lost.  Both the fora below have accepted the version of the complainant and have proceeded on the presumption as if no payment was made to the complainant against the FDR. The District Forum has erred in giving interest on the amount of deposit for the total period whereas the FD was only for 45 days and if any interest was to be given, it should have been given only for 45 days as the complainant did not get it renewed or got the payment.  

8.       On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that though he was regularly visiting the bank however, he does not have the pass book for the year 1997 and further he cannot verify whether any payment was received on account of the maturity of the FD or not. As he has found the original FDR, he is assuming  that the FDR was not presented to the bank for payment.  As his money was deposited with the OP Bank,   he is entitled to get the payment of FD along with interest as the money remained with the bank for the intervening period.  It does not matter whether different language was used in the application filed before the bank for making the payment of the FD and in the legal notice.  The basic fact remains that payment of FD has not been received by the complainant and the bank also does not have any proof that the payment has been made to the complainant. The indemnity bond relied upon by the petitioner bank is undated and does not bear any signature either of the complainant or of any bank official, hence, the same cannot be believed.  Even the Banking Ombudsman after examining the record of the bank has found that  it is not possible to ascertain whether the payment of FD has been made or has not been made.  All these aspects go on to show that the payment has not been made by the bank to the complainant. The learned counsel further stated that as per the copy of email dated 29.7.2013 which has been filed by the petitioner, the list of  record required to be maintained on permanent basis  includes at  sl. no. 45 of this list “Indemnity Bond”.  If the story of the bank is taken to be correct then  the petitioner bank was required to keep the indemnity bond on permanent basis. However, the  bank is not able to show any indemnity bond duly executed  and whatever they have filed as indemnity bond is unsigned and undated and cannot be believed to be the real indemnity bond. This clearly distorts the case of the petitioner bank that the FD was paid to the complainant after signing the indemnity bond.

9.       I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the parties and have examined the record.

10.     It is admitted fact that the amount of Rs.70,000/- was deposited in a fixed deposit account for 45 days by  the complainant/respondent.  The bank  has not filed any clear documents that the maturity amount was paid to the complainant. The indemnity bond being relied upon by the bank is undated and unsigned and therefore, it cannot be taken to be true, particularly in the light of the fact that indemnity bond is required to be kept on a permanent basis as per the email dated  29.7.2013  sent to the Bank officer from the Head Office.  I agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that it is immaterial  what language has been used in the application sent to  the bank or in the legal notice. The basic question is to examine whether the  maturity amount of FD has been paid to the complainant or not.  Even the Banking Ombudsman after examining the record of the bank has come to the conclusion that it is not possible to clearly opine  whether the amount was paid to the complainant or it has not been paid.  The original FDR  is also available  with the complainant. This also strengthens the complainant’s case that amount has not been paid otherwise the FDR would have been discharged and it would not be with the complainant.   

11.     Based on the above discussion,  it is clear that the maturity amount of the fixed deposit has not been paid and therefore, I find that the fora below have not committed any illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in giving the finding that maturity amount of the fixed deposit has not been paid to the complainant and therefore, it is required to be paid. However, it is seen that the District Forum has allowed F.D.  interest on the amount of Rs.70,000/- for 15 years as per RBI guidelines.  The District Forum has not quoted any such RBI guidelines.  Even during the arguments, learned counsel for the complainant   was asked as to on what basis he is claiming interest for the period after the maturity of the fixed deposit, the learned counsel had replied that as the money remained with the bank, the complainant is entitled to get interest.

12.     In the present case, the FD was maturing on 14.4.1997 and as the FD was neither renewed nor payment was taken, therefore, its value remained at its maturity value only. As the amount was not even transferred to the saving account or any other account of the complainant, the amount  did not earn any interest.  Therefore, the District Forum has erred in ordering interest for 15 years on this amount and the State Commission has also erred in confirming the order of the District Forum in this regard.

13.     On the basis of the above examination, the complainant is entitled to maturity value of the fixed deposit as on 14.4.1997. It is also seen from the order of the District Forum that District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony. The fact is that the complainant himself did not present the FDR for payment to the bank in time and therefore, if he has suffered any harassment and mental agony due to his forgetfulness,  he does not deserve any compensation for the same.

14.     Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and the petitioner bank is directed to pay to the respondent /complainant, the maturity amount of the fixed deposit of Rs.70,000/- as on 14.4.1997 which comes to Rs.70,615/-  or  Rs.71,000/- after rounding off.  The orders of District Forum as well as State Commission stand modified accordingly.  The order in respect of Rs.15,000/- granted as compensation to the complainant by the District Forum and confirmed by the State Commission is also set aside.  

15.     It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner bank in compliance of order dated 27.3.2018 has deposited Rs.89,000/- before the State Commission on 9.4.2018.  On the application of the complainant, the State Commission is directed to release the amount of Rs.71,000/- to the  respondent/complainant after verification of the deposited amount and the recipient and the remaining amount shall be returned to the petitioner bank.