Per Justice Mr. S.B. Mhase, Hon’ble President :
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 12.10.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur (the Forum, in short) in consumer complaint No. 330/2009, Narshingrao Kondayya Kondle V/s Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Industrial Area Branch, Solapur.
Admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both the parties.
Appellant is original opponent i.e. State Bank of India. It is a nationalized bank. The respondent is the original complainant and is account-holder. The respondent has withdrawn amount of `25,000/- from his account on 6.9.2007 and invested said amount on 7.9.2007 for a period of 550 days in Fixed Deposit at the rate of 9.75% p.a. Respondent was given Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No. SDA/85 727290. Said Fixed Deposit matured on 10.3.2009 and the amount payable on maturity was/is `28,910/-. However, the said amount was not received from the appellant and therefore, consumer complaint was filed.
The contention of the appellant before the District Forum was that though the Fixed Deposit has been issued by the bank, amount of `25,000/- in cash was not received by the bank and there is no entry in the Cash Book made by the Cashier and therefore, amount has not been paid to the complainant. The fact that the Fixed Deposit Receipt was issued is an admitted position. Therefore, there is substance in the contention of the complainant that said receipt has been issued only after the receipt of the amount. In support of the contention of the complainant, he has filed an affidavit. On behalf of the original opponent, bank except raising contention in the written version, no documentary evidence was produced and affidavits of concerned persons were also not filed. So, ultimately, there is no rebuttal. What is important to note is that if it is the contention of the opponent that cash was not received but the Fixed Deposit Receipt was issued, then steps should have been taken by the bank to verify the same. However, bank officers did not take any step till the maturity and only after maturity, they started raising grievances which is unsustainable in law. In fact, keeping silence till the date of maturity, is the factor as against the bank. In fact, such nationalized bank like appellant should not have preferred appeal to further harass the complainant. The complainant is a man of 72 years when he filed this complaint and the complaint was pending since 2009 upto 12.10.2010 for more than one year period.
In view of such circumstances, we dismiss the appeal with imposition of cost of `10,000/- which should be recovered from the original opponent/ appellant by way of penal and special cost for harassment to the senior citizen and be paid to the respondent/original complainant. Order accordingly.
Pronounced dated 3rd October 2011.
