Haryana

Panchkula

CC/81/2020

SMT PARAMJIT KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER,PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHWANI SHARMA

22 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                       

 

Consumer Complaint No	:	81 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	11.02.2020
Date of Decision	:	22.08.2022

 

 

Smt. Paramjit Kaur, w/o Sh. Rajinder Singh, House No.183, Sector-33-A, Chandigarh(U.T.) 

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sector-12A, Panchkula, Haryana.

….Opposite Party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Sh. Jaideep Bandu, Advocate for complainant.    

Sh. Ajay Sood, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant having a fix deposit account no. O R D FD 225 dated 17.12.1997 of Rs.1,61,000/- in the Punjab National Bank, Sector-12A, Panchkula, Haryana and bank issued slip against this fix deposit to the complainant. The complainant is an illiterate house lady and she nothing knew about the terms of the above said fix deposit. Due to her illiteracy she trusted that her above said fix deposit was safe in the bank but in the year 2019 complainant needed money so she contacted the bank but she was surprised when the bankers said to the complainant that she does not have any fix deposit here. The complainant has visited many times to the bank but nothing was done. Further, the complainant put an appeal under Section 19 of Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding the above said fix deposit before the Appellate Authority of the Punjab National Bank, Sector-17, Chandigarh and they responded to it and in their reply they stated that “This has reference to your RTI application on the captioned subject. In this context, we have to submit that the branch had confirmed that as per our record ORD FD No.225 dated 17.12.1997 for Rs.1,61,000/- does not exist in the branch”. The acts and conducts of the Ops have shows the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and the complainant has suffered harassment, mental agony and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being baseless and false; no cause of action; the complainant has not come with clean hands;  suppressed the material facts; time barred and no jurisdiction. On merits, it is stated that the alleged FD seems to be forged document. It is stated that the complainant is not having any saving account with the branch of the bank of the OP. The complainant is asked by the OP to supply any bank account details with the Bank branch or any other branch of the OP in Panchkula, Chandigarh and any other elsewhere in the country. Even PAN number is not provided by the complainant. It is submitted that as per practice and rules, no payment in cash is to be taken for the opening of FDR or given to the party to make the payment of maturity of the FDR. The OP had thoroughly checked and searched their records and there is no such record is available in respect of claimed FDR in the present complaint. Even no such record of Account opening Form in respect of the complainant is available in the records of the OP. It is submitted that the CBS(Computerized Banking System)  was started in the year 2001 in the Punjab National Bank and in the year 2003 this branch was duly computerized. As per system, if any party did not got the payment than the same amounts transferred in the Overdue FD in the record of the bank. As per record of the OP, in the year 2003, when  the present branch was computerized, a sum of Rs.60 lacs was standing in the overdue FD account but no record of this FD is shown in that account. The OP even searched the data stored in Head Office at Delhi and no such record in respect of the present FD is available. Even otherwise as per bank guidelines, the record of vouchers/registers related to Fixed Deposit shall be maintained up to ten years. So, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade of practice on the part of OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-2(colly) in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Annexure R/A alongwith document Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP. We have gone through the entire record available on record including the written arguments filed by the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP, minutely and carefully.

5.             The dispute in the present case revolves around the deposit receipt(Annexure C-1) wherein a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- was allegedly deposited by the complainant on 17.12.1997 in  Punjab National Bank, Sector-12A, Panchkula i.e. OP for a period of six months @7.5%. As per said deposit receipt the maturity date was 17.06.1998. It has been prayed in the present complaint that the OP be directed to make the payment of sum of Rs. 1,61,000/- alongwith interest, which is applicable in the matter of fixed deposit to the complainant. The compensation of Rs.25,000/- has also been claimed for indulging by the OP into unfair trade practice and rendering deficient service. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been claimed on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation charges respectively.

6.             The OP has resisted the complaint by raising preliminary objection as well as on merits in its written statement. Vide preliminary objection, it is claimed that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred as the maturity of alleged Fix Deposit was on 17.06.1998 whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2020 i.e. on 11.02.2020. It is contended that the complaint could be filed within a period of two years w.e.f. 17.06.1998 i.e. the date of maturity of the alleged FD as per limitation period prescribed under the Consumer Protection, Act.

        The next objection is that the complicated question of law and facts are involved in the adjudication of the controversy involved in the present complaint which cannot be decided in a summary procedure. It is contended that for the proper and fair adjudication of the controversy as involved in the present complaint, extensive evidence is required to be led by the parties involving examination, cross examination and re-examination, if any, of the witnesses. Reliance has been placed upon the law laid down in 1994(2) CPC, (N.C.),425 Further it is claimed that the alleged Fix deposit in question seem to be forged one. It is contended that the OP has thoroughly checked and searched its record but no such record pertaining to the alleged fixed deposit has been found. Further, it is contended that no record pertaining to opening of account etc. has been found in the record of the OP. The learned counsel for the OP reiterating the averments made in the complaint contended that in the year 2003, when the present branch of the OP was computerized, a sum of Rs.60 lacs was found standing in the over-due fixed deposit account but no record of the alleged fixed deposit in question was found. The learned counsel has expressed the apprehension that the complainant might have received the amount of alleged fixed deposit from account other Nationalized bank. Lastly, it is contended that as per bank guidelines, the record of voucher/register relating to FD are required to be maintained up to a period of 10 years and thus, prayer for dismissal of the complaint being not maintainable has been made.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has justified the delay in filing the complaint on the ground that the complainant is illiterate house lady, who is not aware about the limitation period as well as the duration of alleged Fix deposit. It is argued that the complainant was under the bonafide impression that her said Fix deposit amount was safe in the bank and when the needs arose in the year 2019, she approached the bank for the receipt of maturity amount.

        During arguments, the learned counsel reiterated the averments made in the complaint as well as written submissions and contended that the FDR in question was genuine, which was issued by the bank authorities under their seal and signatures. Alleging lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP, the learned counsel has prayed for the acceptance of the complaint by directing the OP to make the payment of Rs.1,61,000/- alongwith the interest and compensation to the complaint.

8.             Having perused the alleged deposit receipt(Annexure C-1), it is found that the same does not bear the stamp of the bank. Moreover cutting over the date is also found. Furthermore the said deposit receipt was never got renewed. The shelter taken by the complainant to justify the delay in claiming the maturity amount in question on the ground of her illiteracy is neither reasonable nor justified and thus, not sustainable as the alleged fixed deposit was not of meager and paltry amount. A sum of Rs.1,61,000/- allegedly deposited in the year of 1997 was a substantial amount.

9.             Since the OP has alleged the deposit receipt(Annexure C-1) to be a forged one, the genuineness of the same cannot be ascertained here in the summary procedure as adjudication of the controversy involved in the present case would require extensive evidence to be led by both the parties involving examination, cross examination and re-examination, if any, of the witnesses. In the present case, the OP has completely denied about the issuance of deposit slip on 17.12.1997 (Annexure C-1). To prove that a sum of Rs.1,61,000/- was actually deposited by the complainant on 17.12.1997 in the Punjab National Bank, Branch Sector-12-A, Panchkula i.e. OP vide deposit receipt (Annexure C-1), the testimony by way of examination and cross examination of concerned accountant and manager who had issued the alleged deposit receipt would be required. Further, a minute examination and perusal of the concerned record pertaining to alleged FD would be required to ascertain the genuineness of the same. The relevant record allegedly is not available because as per guidelines issued by RBI vide (Annexure R-1), the record pertaining to FD deposit ledger and interest register are required to be maintained for 10 years. Therefore, the controversy involved in the present complaint is not feasible to be decided in the summary procedure being adopted by the Commission.

10.            We may safely place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case i.e. UCO Bank vs. Sh. S.D. Wadhawa, 2013(3) CPJ 523: 2013(3) CPR 308: 2013(4) LCT 65(NC) wherein it has been held that jurisdiction of consumer Fora-Plea of Fraud-Complaint regarding fraudulent withdrawal from the respondent account on the basis of forged cheques-Involve complicated and complex questions which require elaborate evidence- The dispute is not adjudicable in summary jurisdiction-As such the complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Form.

Further, reliance can be placed upon law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case i.e. M/s Heights Trade(P) Ltd. Vs. UCO Bank, 2014(1) CPJ 454: 2014(1) CLT 481(NC) wherein it has been held that summary procedure-Jurisdiction-Intricate and complicated questions involved  in the case-It  would be difficult  to decide  the case on mere documents-The evidence of experts and record have to be looked into- These questions  must be discussed  by an appropriate forum or civil court-The Consumer  Commission must refrain  from arrogating  those powers  which it does not possess.

11.            In view of the above legal propositions as settled by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission in cases(Supra) we have no option except to dismiss the complaint being not maintainable.  However, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to grant the liberty to the complainant to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action in the appropriate Tribunal/Authority/ Court as per law if she is so advised. The complainant shall be at liberty to file an application before the concerned Court/Authority/Tribunal under Section 14 of the limitation Act for excluding the period spent before this Forum for the purposes of computation of limitation in terms and observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute 1995(III) SCC P.583”.    A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:22.08.2022

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                               Satpal                         

                                     President