STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 06.01.2017
Date of final hearing: 25.08.2023
Date of pronouncement: 31.10.2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 06 OF 2017
IN THE MATTER OF: -
Subhash Singh S/o Sri Chand, R/o Village Kankraula, P.O. Bhangraula, District Gurgaon. …..Complainant
Versus
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, E-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi through its Manager.
- Oriental Bank of Commerce, IMT Manesar, through its Manager. …..Opposite Parties
CORAM: Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Argued by:- Ms. Gunjan Tripathi, proxy counsel for Sh. S.K. Tripathi, counsel for complainant.
Sh. Davinder Kumar, counsel for opposite parties.
ORDER
NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Facts in complaint are: on 29.09.2007, complainant and his father, opened joint account No.06282011005548 in bank viz. OP No. 2. On 14.12.2011, complainant got transferred Rs.1,50,00,000/- through OP bank from his joint account, to the account of Sh. Vikram Singh S/o Sh. Raghunath Singh bearing No.00292010060220 maintained in Oriental Bank of Commerce-Mahipalpur Branch, Delhi, but Vikram Singh refused to take that amount and same was again returned in account of complainant on 22.12.2011. On 24.12.2011, complainant, after death of his father moved application to bank for closing the joint account which was closed on same day. It is pleaded that since 22.12.2011 bank has kept huge amount, illegally and no intimation was given to him. When he came to know that amount transferred by him has been returned in bank, then he approached bank with prayer to withdraw the amount, but bank did not pay any heed to his request. He wrote to Chief Manager of OP No. 2 on 22.07.2015 and requested that entire amount (Rs.1,50,00,000/-) be given to him along with full interest, till date. As per plea, complainant has written many letters to bank but bank has not replied to single letter. He got receipt of last letter dated 22.07.2015, so that bank should not take benefit that complainant has not made any letter. Bank obtained legal opinion. Legal consultant vide letter dated 19.08.2015 advised bank that indemnity bond has to be made between bank and complainant. Legal consultant also opined that bank has no fault to give interest on amount and only principal amount had to be refunded to him. It is pleaded that act and conduct of OPs in denying to pay interest on Rs.1,50,00,000/- which is lying deposited with bank since 24.12.2011 to 31.08.2015, to complainant amounts to invidious discrimination, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He suffered mental and economic loss. Bank promised him that interest part would be given to him, after signing some blank papers, because those papers would be sent to Head Office and sanction would be given by Head Office. He (complainant) signed some blank papers. He was shocked when his amount has been refunded, without any interest part. When he asked bank then it said that “you (complainant) have signed on indemnity bond dated 31.08.2015 and denied from taking interest from bank”. It is pleaded that interest part (saving interest) at minimum basis @ 4% p.a. since 22.12.2011 to 04.09.2015 comes to Rs.23,67,621/-. Inter-aila, on these pleas; by pleading cause of action, complainant has filed this complaint and sought following directions against OPs:-
- To provide immediate interest on principal amount.
- To pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for causing physical and mental harassment.
- To grant upto date interest to which complainant has been put to suffer, to tune of Rs.23,67,621/- since 22.12.2011 to 04.09.2015 and interest @ 18% on the principal amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/-.
- To grant litigation charges.
Text of complaint is supported by complainant’s duly sworn affidavit.
2. OPs in their defence has pleaded that: complainant has concealed true and material facts. There are no specific allegations of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice against OPs. Complainant has no cause of action. Complaint is abuse of process of law, and evident of illegal determined approach and pressure to adopt complainant’s wishful designs and impose such conditions which are not, in any manner acceptable, justified and plausible on OPs. Complaint is barred by limitation as it has been filed after six years from closing saving account which was closed on 24.12.2011 and after that; complainant has not hired or availed any service from OPs, for consideration, therefore, he (Complainant) is not a consumer. As per complainant’s request; amount (Rs.1.50 crore) was got transferred in the account of Vikram S/o Raghunath Singh on 14.12.2011 in his account maintained in Branch Mahipalpur, but he refused to accept the same for reason that amount does not pertain to him. Therefore, Branch Office-Mahipalpur sent the amount to OP No. 2-Manesar Branch in their ‘Insol Account’ on 22.12.2011, and same was credited on 24.12.2011 Insole Account of Branch Office-Manesar. Thereafter, complainant/account holder in Branch Office-Manesar refused to take money back and closed his account on 24.12.2011. Sh. Subhash has written on letter dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure OP-4) that: “Ye jo paise Jahan Sey aa Raha Hai Vahi Bhej Diya Jaye”. It is pleaded that after returning the amount to OP No. 2; it had vide letter dated 23.12.2011 informed complainant that amount of Rs.1.50 crore has returned to Insole account of branch. Since the account was freezed at request of complainant, direction was sought from him for disposal of amount, either by preparation of draft in his favour or after defreezing the account; deposit of amount in account, but complainant, in writing, requested bank that amount be returned again to the account and he was reluctant to receive the amount. After obtaining legal opinion; amount was again sent to Insol account of OBC Bank Branch-Mahipalpur on 21.01.2012 for making payment to Vikram Singh, which was again sent to Manesar Branch-OP No. 2 in their Insol account on 28.01.2012 and same was credited on 31.01.2012 as Vikram Singh refused to take the money and submitted that he was having no knowledge of fund.
3. OP No. 2, vide its letter dated 14.02.2012, through speed post dated 16.02.2012 (Annexure OP-5 & OP-6) again informed complainant about return of money from Mahipalpur Branch and also sought direction from him regarding disposal of amount to him and informed him that bank will not be responsible for any interest or any consequences as amount has been kept in Head Office at complainant’s risk and responsibility, at zero percent interest rate. As no positive response was received from complainant therefore, it was decided to get publication, informing him that amount is lying at Head Office, as Vikram Singh has refused to accept the amount. Publication notice dated 13.02.2014 (Annexure OP-7) was issued in Newspaper: Rastriya Sahara, but complainant did not turn up. Complainant had never approached OPs and also Vikram Singh for confirmation of payment of huge amount and first time submitted letter dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure OP-8) demanding money (Rs.1.50 crore) with interest. It is denied that complainant has written any letter demanding amount from bank, except letter dated 22.07.2015. It is pleaded that OPs has written letters to complainant and issued publication and acted in diligent manner.
4. After receiving letter; bank started process of returning the amount to complainant, which was lying at Head Office at their INSOLGEN account and after taking legal opinion; bank informed complainant to approach the branch for releasing the amount to him after completing formalities, as advised by legal retainer, which was accepted by complainant without any protest. After receiving amount from Head Office; an amount of Rs.1.50 crore was credited in account (new account as per complainant’s statement as CW-1) of complainant on 08.09.2015. Indemnity bond was executed by him on 31.08.2015 and he agreed not to claim interest as it was mistake on his part. Letter dated 22.07.2015, 27.08.2015, indemnity bond and order dated 18.01.2016 are Annexure OP-8 to OP 11 respectively. It is pleaded that complainant is not entitled to interest as the amount was kept in Sundry account (no interest bearing account). There is no deficiency in service of OPs. Complainant has knowledge of ‘refusal’ of amount by Vikram Singh and OPs informed him vide letters dated 23.12.2011 and 14.02.2012 and publication was also issued in newspaper. It is denied that there is inaction on the part of OPs.
5. Parties led their respective evidence. Subhash Singh-complainant appeared in witness box as CW-1 on 03.04.2018 and testified on solemn affirmation. He tendered his duly sworn affidavit along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6. His version, on oath, runs in following manner:-
“I had joint savings account No. 06282011005548 with my father Shri Chand in Oriental Bank of Commerce, IMT Manesar, Gurgaon-opposite party No.2 (Bank). On 14th December, 2011, I had issued a cheque of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in favour of my cousin Bikram Singh. Bikram Singh refused to accept the cheque and Rs.1,50,00,000/- was deposited in the suspense account of the Bank on 22nd December, 2011. My account was closed on 24th December, 2011. I wanted to withdraw the said amount but the Branch Manager of the Bank asked me to inform the higher authorities. On 22nd July, 2015 I wrote a letter to Branch Manager of Bank. I had visited the Head Office of Bank on 10th and 20th August, 2015 but the said amount was not paid to me. On 04th September, 2015 I got opened new account in the Bank and on the same day the Bank credited the said amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- in my account. The Bank did not pay any interest to me from 22nd December, 2011 to 04th September, 2015. I pray by filing this complaint interest at the rate of 4% per annum should be paid to me by the Bank and the said amount of interest comes to Rs.23,67,621/-. I also pray that compensation and litigation expenses be also paid to me.”
6. Counsel appearing for OPs on 03.04.2018 requested for deferring cross examination of complainant. However, learned counsel for OPs on 16.05.2019, suffered statement that he does not want to cross examine Subhash Singh-complainant and he (complainant) closed his evidence on 16.05.2019 itself. Statement of Neeraj Kumar, Senior Manager-OBC was recorded on 16.09.2019. He stated that he filed his affidavit Ex.OPW-1/A and filed documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-11 as evidence of OPs and closed the same.
7. OPs filed written arguments on 25.08.2023. Learned counsel for complainant stated at bar that she does not want to file counter written submissions. However, she filed calculation sheet. Oral arguments were heard by this Commission on 25.08.2023.
8. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that complainant has succeeded in proving deficiency in service of OPs-Bank. Bank cannot deny interest to complainant, for no fault on his part, on whopping amount of Rs.1.50 crore which was lying with bank from 22.12.2011 till 04.09.2015. It is urged that there was no intimation given to complainant by bank that: Vikram Singh has refused to accept the amount. Except letter dated 27.08.2015, no communication was sent to complainant. Complainant has also no knowledge of any publication got published by bank, in newspaper.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for bank/OPs has urged with vehemence that there is no negligence on the part of bank authorities. It has acted, only on instructions of complainant, to send the amount of Rs.1.50 crore in the account of Vikram Singh, who in his sole wisdom, has refused to accept the same. OBC Bank of Mahipalpur Branch sent the amount to OBC Bank of Manesar Branch. Finding no alternative and positive response, from complainant, as to how to deal with the amount; the amount was kept in the Insol account of bank for the reason that complainant had already closed his joint account.
10. Having given anxious thoughts to the rival contentions put across this Commission, and on the basis of case set up by both the parties to this lis, along with evidence as led (oral and documentary); this Commission is of firm opinion that complainant has no case. Reasons are obvious. Complainant was holding joint saving account No. 06282011005548 in Oriental Bank of Commerce, IMT, Manesar. From that account, he issued cheque of Rs.1.50 crore in favour of Vikram Singh, who, in his sole wisdom refused to accept that amount in his account No. 00292010060220, which was maintained by him in OBC Bank’s Branch at Mahipalpur, by allegedly quoting reason that amount does not pertain to him. Obviously, as flowing consequence; OBC Bank’s Branch at Mahipalpur had to send back this amount of Rs.1.50 crore on 22.12.2011 to its Branch at Manesar/OP No. 2, where complainant was holding his joint account. OP No. 2 has credited the same amount in their Insol account on 24.12.2011, because complainant had permanently closed his joint account on 24.12.2011 through his application Ex.OP-2. Earlier on 14.12.2011, through his application Ex.OP-1; complainant had also informed OP No. 2 that: no transaction be conducted in his account No. 06282011005548 and it be temporarily closed. Right here, it has to be borne in mind that the day (14.12.2011) when complainant moved application Ex.OP-1 to bank stating that no transaction be conducted in his account and it be temporarily closed; he, as per his statement on oath as CW-1 had issued cheque of Rs.1.50 crore in favour of Vikram Singh on same day. That is how, the account No. 06282011005548 was requested to be made as inoperative (permanently closed) by complainant himself ultimately on 24.12.2011. On 23.12.2011 bank informed complainant through its communication Ex.OP-4 that Vikram Singh has refused to accept the amount in his account No. 00292010060220; amount has returned back to bank’s branch; since you (complainant) had freezed your account, therefore you instruct bank that the amount be transferred to you through bank draft, or else, amount be credited in the account by defreezing the account. On this document (Ex.OP-4); complainant is writing; “Ye jo paise Jahan Sey aa Raha Hai Vahi Bhej Diya Jaye”. Meaning thereby, complainant too has refused to receive back the amount of Rs.1.50 crore. Through his aforesaid writing, complainant infact had made the bank/OPs to act, as a shuttle cock, between him and Vikram Singh. No doubt bank being service provider, has to act as per instructions of its client (complainant), but still complainant cannot be allowed to make his bank to act in manner in order to create eventual circumstance for him to secure wrongful gain. Why complainant expressed his reluctance to receive back the amount on or after 23.12.2011 through his above quality recitals, was certainly mysterious and mystifying circumstance. It, all the more has becomes more dubious when complainant, in his own wisdom, had permanently closed his joint account maintained in OBC bank on 24.12.2011 vide letter Ex.OP-2, thereby creating impediment before the OP/Bank to promptly credit the amount of Rs.1.50 crore in his account on 23.12.2011 itself, or shortly thereafter. Hence, it is established that complainant, himself has acted in a manner, to prevent credit of amount of Rs.1.50 crore in his account, instantly on 23.12.2011 or in short span thereafter. He cannot be permitted to blame OPs/Bank for his own faults. By no stretch of any legal interpretation; any negligent act or deficient service on the part of OPs bank is deciphered, even remotely. It is proved from complainant’s aforementioned writing on document Ex.OP-4 that: it has come in his knowledge on 23.12.2011 itself, that Vikram Singh has refused to accept the amount and he (complainant) is again writing to bank, on letter Ex.OP-4 itself to send the amount back to him (Vikram Singh). Learned counsel for Complainant has falsely urged that complainant was not in knowledge of the fact that Vikram Singh has refused to accept the amount, except its communication dated 27.08.2015.
11. Also it has been wrongly projected by complainant that OPs have not informed him any time. Evidence of OPs projects otherwise scenario. Bank’s communication viz.: Ex.OP-4 dated 23.11.2012, Ex.OP-5 dated 14.02.2012 (sent through speed post) and newspaper publication (Ex.OP-7) would collectively establish that complainant was being apprised of all facts. Complainant cannot be allowed to blow ‘hot and cold’ at same breath. Complainant is not so novice and neophyte of actual ground realities, as he has pretended himself to be.
12. Admittedly, indemnity Bond (Ex.OP-10) was executed on 31.08.2015 between complainant and OPs. It bears signature of complainant, Chief Manager of OBC Bank-Manesar, witnesses and sureties. Through this indemnity bond; complainant has agreed to receive Rs.1.50 crore without interest. This amount was accordingly released to him on 08.09.2015. Complainant cannot wriggle out from legal implications and ramifications flowing from indemnity bond dated 31.08.2015-Ex.OP-10. He himself has foreclosed his claim qua interest and principally agreed to accept Rs.1.50 crore. To term that he (complainant) had signed on blank papers, was indeed ridiculous on his part. After all, he is not a rustic villager. He is well educated and aware of what he was doing, sensibly. He at all times; was mindful and aware of ramifications flowing from his own acts. OPs/Bank had been acting on instructions of complainant and on instructions of its legal retainer. Its action towards alleged cause of complainant is not found faulted, on scrutiny of evidence.
13. As a result of subjective and critical analysis of all relevant facts of this case; this Commission has arrived at an inescapable conclusion that: this complaint is wholly misconceived and bereft of credence and does not carry any substance/merits. Being devoid of merits, it is hereby dismissed.
14. Application(s) pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
15. Copy of this judgment be provided to parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
16. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 31st October, 2023
Naresh Katyal
Judicial Member
Addl. Bench-II
