Delhi

StateCommission

FA/440/2014

CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAM KUMAR GOEL - Opp.Party(s)

04 Sep 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision: 04.09.2018

First Appeal No. 440/2014

(Arising out of the order dated 05.04.2014passed in complaint case No. 120/2013 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-IV, NandNagri, Delhi.)

In the matter of:

Central Bank of India

Branch Railway Road,

Shahdara Delhi-110032,

Through its Chief Manager                                               ..........Appellant

 

Versus

 

Ram Kumar Goel

Add-1039 Railway Road,

Shahdara                                                           ........Respondent

                                                                  

CORAM

 

JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL                 -                       PRESIDENT

SALMA NOOR                                    -                       MEMBER

 

1.             Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                              Yes

2.             To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                    Yes

 

 

SALMA NOOR:  MEMBER

 

1.             Present appeal is filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short the ‘Act’)by the appellant/OPi.e. Central Bank of India against order dated 05.04.2014passed by Ld. District Forum-IV, (North East), NandNagri, Delhiin Complaint Case No. 120/13.
2.             Brief facts of the case are that on 23.04.2010, the respondent/complainant had got issued two FDRs of Rs.40,000/- each, from appellant/OP. For, one FDR he had paid the amount through his account and, the other by depositing cash both the FDRs matured on 09.05.2011 and were renewed for a period of 555 days after maturity. For the renewed FDRs maturity amount was Rs.49,824/- each and date of maturitywas 14.11.2012. One FDR had been renewed by making endorsement on its backside itself while a new FDR had been issued for the second FDR and his signatures were obtained in the FDR register on two separate pages. One of the renewed FDR,was enchased on 03.02.2012i.e prior to the date maturity. It was stated that maturity of the other renewed FDR on 14.11.2012,respondent/complainant approached the appellant/OP Bank on 20.11.2012 seeking payment of maturity amount. It was further stated that appellant/OP did not pay the maturity amount on the pretext that the account number of FDR was the same as the FDR which he had got encashed earlier and that other FDR was issued by mistake. Complaint regarding non-payment,was made to all the concerned authorities including the Chairman/Managing Director of the Bank by the respondent/complainant, but to no avail. The respondent/complainant alleged that the appellant/OP had played a fraud on him and prayed that the appellant/OP be directed to encash the amount of theFDR, that is, Rs.49,824/- with interest from the date of maturity ofthe FDR till the date of payment along with Rs.1 lakh compensation on account of mental pain and suffering.
3.             On notice, appellant/OP filed the reply stating that respondent/complainant had drawn one FDR of Rs.40,000/- for a period of one year i.e. from 23.04.2010 to 23.04.2011 bearing No.3067312615, having maturity value of Rs.42,874/-. On 09.05.2011, the respondent/complainant approached the appellant/OP Bank and requested for renewal of his aforesaid FDR and appellant/OP renewed the same for a sum of Rs.42,978/- the amount which was due in the said FDR by making an endorsement at the back of the said FDR. It was alleged that appellant/OP also issued a printed FDRfor the said amount bearing A/c.  No.3067312516 due on 14.11.2012. Thereafter the respondent/complainant, had, got his FDR encashed before the date of its maturity by presenting the original FDR bearing the endorsement at its back and had retained the printed FDR for the same amount which had been inadvertently issued by the appellant/OP. Itwas denied that any fraud was played upon the respondent/complainant and it was alleged that it was the respondent/complainant who had played fraud upon appellant/OP by taking undue advantage of the duplicate FDR which was inadvertently issued by appellant/OP.
4.             Thereafter the complainant filed rejoinder reiterating the facts as stated in the complaint.It was also alleged that the officials of the appellant/OP misbehaved with him and a police complaint was also made on behalf of respondent/complainant against the appellant/OP. It was alleged that on checking the FDR receipts register the sign of respondent/complainant was found at two places.
5.             Thereafter the both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments were also filed.
6.             After considering the evidence filed by both the parties and hearing the arguments the Ld. District Forum reached the conclusion that issuing of another FDR can’t be a mere mistake or an act by inadvertence but it was a deliberate act of the officials of OP after following all due procedures. The District Forum allowed the complaint with the following reliefs:-

1. A sum of Rs.49,824/- alongwith interest thereon as applicable during the particular periods from the date of maturity i.e. 14/11/2012 till its final payment: and
2. A sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental pain and agony as well as litigation costs.

 

7.             Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Ld. District Forum the appellant/OPhas preferred the present appeal.
8.             The contention of appellant/OP is that the respondent/complainant made a fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- on 23.04.2010 through transfer of  money from his Savings A/c No. 1213947168 and FDR bearing No.N-3067312615 was issued and delivered to him. Thereafter, same FDR was renewed for a period of 555 days for Rs.42,874/- making endorsement to that effect on the backside of the original FDR. It is further contended that in addition to the renewed FDR another separate FDR in original was issued to the respondent/complainant. It is contended that this FDR bearing certificate no. N-080442was encashed on 03.02.2013 and the amount of Rs.45,711/- on that was credited to the account of the respondent/complainant. The respondent/complainant has no dispute as regards these averments.
9.             The grievance of the respondent/complainant that the Bank is not paying the amount due in respect of his FDR with certificate No.N-167770 which bears the same A/c No. 3067312615 as the FDR which has already been encashed. This aforesaid FDR maturedon 14.11.2012 with maturity amount of Rs.49,874/-. The contention of the appellant/OP is that this FDR certificate No.N-167770 was issued to the deposit holder by mistake and hence according to the appellant/OP the respondent/complainant had already encashed the FDR on 03.02.2012 as aforesaid.
10.             It is the contention of the respondent/complainant that on 23.04.2010 he purchased two FDRs one through transfer of money through his Savings Bank A/c. and the other through cash. It is contended that the earlier FDR he had not made any nomination while in the later FDR he nominated his grand daughter (poti) Ms. ShikhaGoel.
11.             The respondent/complainant further contended that both the aforesaid FDRs purchased on 23.04.2010 were renewed on 09.05.2011 to get a maturity date 14.11.2012. The bank officials recorded renewal on the back of the FDR bearing certificate no.N-080442 while a printed renewed FDR with certificate no.N-167770 was issued in respect of the other FDR. It is contended that in maturity date 14.11.2012 and account number is the same in both FDR’s. The respondent/complainant further contended that refusal to pay the maturity amount for the FDR bearing certificate No.N-167770, is deficiency in service and he approached many fora. Complaints were made to the police and the RBI Banking ombudsman. The Banking ombudsman heard both the parties and perused statement of account and cash payment and receipt register of 23.04.2010 and observed that there was only one debit of Rs.40,000/- from the account of the respondent/complainant for purchasing FDR and one receipt of Rs.40,000/- in case pertaining to a different account holder named ManojLohri. The ombudsman had a reconciliatory meeting on 20.02.2013 attended by both the parties and the bank was advised to conduct an internal audit in the matter which was subsequently done but the matter could not be resolved. The ombudsman closed the case with remark that “a decision on the case requires consideration of elaborate documents and oral evidence and the proceedings before the Banking ombudsman are not appropriate for adjudication of such a complaint.” The ombudsman advised the complainant to approach an appropriate forum to resolve this dispute. Thereafter, respondent/complainant approached the Ld. District Forum, which decided the complaint on 05.04.2014 and this appeal has been filed subsequently against the said order.
12.             We heard the Ld. Counsels for the appellant and the respondent and perused evidence available on the file. It is admitted by the appellant/OP that two FDRs with the same A/c number but different certificate numbers have been issued. The case of appellant/OP is that the other FDR was issued by the appellants/OP’s staff by mistake while the respondent/complainant pleads that he bought two FDR one from his bank account and the other through cash. And both of these FDRs were purchased on 23.04.2010 and renewed on 09.05.2011. The appellant/OP has filed statements of account and cash payments and receipt register to prove that there was only one transaction but the appellant/OP has not shown any disciplinary proceedings against the person responsible for the alleged mistake. There is no mention of the word ‘Duplicate Copy’ on the certificate which according to the bank has been issue by mistake. Even if plea of the Bank is accepted, there is serious deficiency in providing service to the respondent/complainant.Photocopy of the nomination form has been submitted on which the bank officer has signed on 23.04.2010. Photocopies of the certificate bearing No.N-080442 and No.N-167770 have also been filed by the parties and there is a mention on these certificates that there is no nomination in the earlier FDR/certificate and there is a nomination in the latter FDR/certificate.
13.             The basic question is that whether as the appellant pleads there was only one transaction and the FDR issued from the respondents account alone was the genuine FDR or there were two FDR’s, one paid from the account and the other by cash. The copies of statement of account and cash payments and receipts show that there was only one entry. However, it would be unreasonable to assume that if a bank staff has intentions to commit fraud, as it is alleged they would show the amount in the register. The copy of the nomination form in which Ms. ShikhaGoel, grand daughter (poti) of the respondent/complainant has been nominated is duly accepted by the branch officer on 23.04,2010. It means that nomination was done on the day of purchase of FDRs on 23.04.2010 only, but the FDR with certificate no.N-080442 which the respondent has encashed pre-maturely and which the appellant/OP pleads to be the genuine certificate does not mention that a nominee has been nominated. It is in the other FDR with certificate no.N-167770 where mention of nominee has been made. This goes against the appellant/OP because the nomination form was accepted by the officer of appellant/OP on 23.04.2010 itself.
14.             It is evident from the above that appellant/OP failed to prove, that the FDR with certificate no.N-167770 is duplicate copy of the one with certificate no.N-080442. The bank had issued two FDRs on the same A/c No, for which the respondent/complainant cannot be punished. It is a clear case of deficiency in service. The respondent/complainant cannot be punished if the bank staff does not make entry of the cash transaction in the bank registers. It is apparent that respondent/complainant purchased two FDRs and was given two certificates as proof of the transactions. The respondent/complainant need not check whether the A/c number mentioned in both the certificates are the same.
15.             In view of the above discussion, it is held that there is no merit in the appeal and same is ordered to be dismissed. The order passed by the District Forum is upheld.
16.             A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs as well as to Ld. District Forum for necessary information. File of the District Forum will also sent back forthwith.

                        File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                      (Justice VeenaBirbal)

      President

 

 

                                                                                                                                                              (Salma Noor)

                                                                        Member