RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No. 1044 of 2016

1- Allahabad Bank through its Branch Manager,

     Chunar Branch, District Mirzapur.

2- Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank,

    Maruhana, Mirzapur.                           …….Appellants.

Versus

Ram Chander s/o Late Bhagelu Ram,

R/o Mohalla Apakpur Mohana, Kasba, Chunar,

Pargana, Haveli, Tehsil, Chunar,

District, Mirzapur.                                      ….Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Vijai Varma, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sanjai Kumar, Member.

Sri Avadhesh Shukla, counsel for the appellants.

Sri B.K. Chaudhary, counsel for the respondent.

Date  13.9.2017       

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Sri Vijai Varma,  Member)

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 31.3.2016, passed by the District Forum, Mirzapur in complaint case no.14 of 2014.

The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that the respondent/complainant had deposited Rs.2 lacs as FD in a joint account with her wife for a period of 7 years on 6.10.2006. When the complainant asked the OP to deposit their matured amount in their account, then the complainant was called personally for the purpose but despite contacting many times, the matured amount was not refunded to the complainant, hence a complaint case was filed in the Forum below wherein the appellant/OP

(2)

filed their WS mentioning therein that the complainant did not deposit any money with regard to the deposit receipt and had assured the Bank officials that the amount would be paid from his account no.9261 in the Bank and on his assurance the Bank  officials had prepared an FDR but the complainant without signing the transfer voucher for depositing the amount from his account no.9261 took away the FDR receipt. Because of transfer or leave of the official concerned that the amount for creation of FDR was not debited from his account no.9261 but the complainant was trying to make unlawful gain as the matter did not come to the light. The fact is that no amount has been debited from the account of the complainant nor any amount was ever deposited by the complainant. Therefore, with regard to the FDR in question no amount was ever deposited by the complainant and now he is trying to make unlawful gain because of the FDR obtained by him. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. After hearing the parties, ld. Forum passed the following order as under:-

"परिवाद आंशिक रूप से विपक्षी संख्‍या-1 के विरूद्व स्‍वीकार किया जाता है विपक्षी संख्‍या-। को आदिष्‍ट किया जाता है कि वह मु0360353/- रू0 तथा उक्‍त धनराशि पर दिनांक 7.10.13 से अदायगी की तिथि तक का 8 प्रतिशत साधारण वार्षिक ब्‍याज एंव 3000/- रू0 शारीरिक और मानसिक कष्‍ट के लिये तथ 2500/- रू0 वाद व्‍यय के लिये परिवादीगण को अदा कर दें। उक्‍त अदायगी इस निर्णय की तिथि से 45 दिन के अन्‍दर किया जाना सुनिश्चित किया जाय।"

          Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant has filed this appeal mainly on the grounds that

(3)

the FDR in question was given without debit voucher being signed by the complainant and thus, no money was paid in receiving the FDR which was issued by the then official in good faith thinking that the debit voucher would be signed by the complainant whereby the amount would be debited from his account as the complainant was an honourable known customer of the Bank but the complainant had not signed any debit voucher whereby the amount could not be debited from his account and thus, the FDR issued was without any amount having been paid by the complainant and therefore, the complainant was trying to make unlawful gain on the basis of FDR which was issued without consideration i.e. the amount mentioned in it. Therefore, ld. Forum has passed erroneous order which is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

          Heard counsel for the parties and perused the entire records.

In this case, it is not disputed that the complainant had an account with the appellant/OP and that he obtained an FDR for a sum of Rs.2 lacs but the disputed point is that according to the appellant the FDR was issued in good faith without the amount having been debited from the account of the complainant or paid by the complainant, in good faith and on the assurance of the complainant that he would sign the debit voucher but subsequently, did not do so and therefore, the FDR was obtained by the complainant without any amount being paid by the

(4)

complainant for obtaining the FDR and therefore, there was no question of making payment of the alleged matured amount on the basis of the FDR so obtained by the complainant. On the contrary, it is the case of the respondent/complainant that he had paid Rs.2 lacs for obtaining FDR and now the appellant is not making payment of the matured amount and therefore, they had committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the Forum has passed the correct order.  

The appeal was filed with delay but vide order passed on 26.9.2016 the delay in filing the appeal was condoned and as not appeal or revision appears to have filed against the order, therefore, the order has become final.

So now, it is to be seen as to whether the complainant had obtained the FDR after making payment of the amount of Rs.2 lacs to the appellant. If so, its consequences.

In this regard, we find that the counsel for the appellant argues that the amount of Rs.2 lacs was to be deposited from the account of the respondent/ complainant for preparation of the FDR but even though the FDR was prepared and issued to the complainant but the debit voucher could not be signed by the respondent/ complainant and therefore, the complainant was having the FDR without any consideration or amount paid for obtaining the FDR and therefore, the appellant did not commit any deficiency in service in not making the payment of any amount. Ld. counsel for the respondent

(5)

argues that the complainant had made payment of Rs.2 lacs and then only the FDR was prepared and now the appellant does not want to make payment of the matured amount which they are liable to pay on the basis of FDR issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant and his wife. In this regard, it is noticeable that the complainant states in his complaint that he had obtained Rs.2 lacs from his GPF account which he had deposited with the appellant/OP as fixed deposit. So there is clear cut case of obtaining the amount of Rs.2 lacs from the GPF account and depositing this amount with the appellant/OP for issuance of the FDR. In this regard, it transpires that the amount of Rs.2 lacs which the complainant received from his GPF account could only be obtained through cheque as there is no provision for obtaining this amount in cash. Now from the statement of account of the complainant, it transpires that he had made deposits on 19.9.2006 Rs.1,06,080.00 and on 25.9.2006 of Rs.1,52,989.00. So a sum of Rs.4,94,220.00 was in the account of the complainant, as is evident from a photo copy of the statement filed by the appellant. Since the complainant speaks about the amount of Rs.2 lacs getting out of the GPF therefore, there appears to be reason in the arguments advanced by the ld. counsel for the appellant that out of the aforesaid balance amount, Rs.2 lacs was to be debited through debit voucher and thereafter, the FDR was to be prepared. It also transpires that a debit voucher was prepared on 6.10.2006 but the amount could not be debited as the debit voucher was not signed by the

(6)

complainant but the official concerned,  it is argued by the ld. counsel for the appellant, could not check the matter and issued FDR without debiting the amount from the account of the complainant. Though, it is a debatable point as to how could without debiting the amount through the voucher the FDR was prepared but more importantly when the question was put to the complainant as to when the amount was not debited from the account then how could he pay the bank official for preparation of the FDR. The ld. counsel for the respondent has given the reply that the amount was paid in cash but this statement does not hold any water as firstly there is no mentioning of the payment of amount of Rs.2 lacs in cash to the appellant. Secondly, there is no document to show that the amount was paid in cash and thirdly, the amount was admittedly received by the complainant from his GPF account which had to be in cheque only and therefore, there is no question of involvement of cash for payment for obtaining the FDR. It is further important to note that the complainant has not been able to prove as to wherefrom, be got Rs.2 lacs to make the payment to the appellant, if the amount was not debited from his account, where more than Rs.4 lacs was in his account. It is also important to note that the complainant is taking shelter under FDR issued to them without proving the amount having been paid in obtaining it. Their only logic is that the FDR could not have been issued without obtaining the money without being able to prove the source of payment of this amount, just because the FDR was issued because of the fault or inadvertence of

(7)

the officer concerned. The complainant can not take advantage of such receipts which was obtained by him without any consideration. The complainant can not be allowed to take advantage of an inadvertent or negligent act of the official of the bank. Bank can not be compelled to make payment of the maturity amount on the basis of FDR wrongly issued by them as it was obtained by the complainant without payment of any amount. The amount kept in bank is public money and it can not be floundered for a negligent or inadvertent act of the bank for committing such a mistake but certainly the bank can not be compelled to make payment on the basis of such an FDR. Ld. Forum has not correctly appreciated the facts and evidence of the case and has passed an erroneous order. Therefore the order is liable to be set aside and the appeal allowed.

ORDER

The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated  31.3.2016, passed by the District Forum, Mirzapur in complaint case no.14 of 2014 is set aside. The complaint is dismissed.

Copy of this order be provided to the parties as per rules.

         (Vijai Varma)                          (Sanjai Kumar)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA-II

Court No.3