The Case in brief is that Shri Ajoy Deb, S/o Shri Surendra Nath Deb of Tufanganj, Cooch Behar opened 3 FDRs (FCNR - B). Now Mr. Deb/Respondent/Complainant went to Kuwait to join his professional job. He returned to India in 2017 and then only he started enquiry regarding the receipts of the matured value of the said 3 FDRs. Incidentally, he had a Savings Bank A/c in the said bank bearing A/c no. 11168836237. He did not get any satisfactory answer regarding the status of his said FDRs nor did he get any maturity amount of the said FDR as alleged. Then he started writing letters to different higher-echelons of the SBI including the Chairperson of the SBI, but to no avail. Having no alternative way, Mr. /Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Deb) submitted a petition under RTI Act, 2005 containing some questions which needed the explanation/clarification in connection with the maturity of his said FDRs. But the CPIO supplied the reply which was vague, general in nature not being point-wise and concise. He again submitted petition under RTI Act and he did not get any satisfactory answer in this respect.
Being aggrieved by the replies of the RTI petition as well as the so many communications with SBI higher-echelons, he filed a petition in the Ld. DCDRC, Cooch Behar bearing no. CC/48/2021 stating inter alia the payment of his maturity amount of the said 3 FDRs along with penalty for mental pain due to harassment and deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, etc.
The bank authority expressed their inability to solve his problem since 13 years have already been elapsed from the date of maturity of the said 3 FDRs and resorting to fully computerized system.
The Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Deb) sent 2 (two) RTI petitions under RTI Act (2005) on 20/1/21 and 16/3/21 respectively but did not get any satisfactory point-wise, precise reply of the bank’s letter dated 12/4/21. Being utterly dissatisfied and annoyed, he again submitted another RTI petition dated 19/5/21, to AGM, SBI Samridhhi Bhavan, Strand Road, Kolkata – 1 who (Mr.Somnath Acharyya) forwarded the letter dated 16/6/21to CPIO-cum-RM and RBO II, Siliguri, PIN – 734008 with a copy to the Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Deb). Though this letter was not containing the point-wise, precise reply to the queries of the said RTI petition of the Respondents/Complainant (Mr. Ajoy Deb). Nevertheless, it was the first letter of communication by Revisionist/O.P. (SBI) to the Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Ajoy Deb).
Being utterly aggrieved he filed a case being no.CC/48/2021 the Ld. DCDRC, Cooch Behar on 04/9/21 seeking inter alia the payment of Rs.688446.29 being the maturity value of the said 3 FDRs along with other reliefs for mental pain, legal cost, travelling cost, etc.
During the trial stage, the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Revisionist/OP (SBI Siliguri) submitted a petition dated 12/5/22 raised the question regarding the maintainability of the case/petition since it is time-barred as stated because the Fixed Deposits had been matured in 2004 and the claim was raised in 2017 when the Complainant/Respondent returned to India from Kuwait after the long gap of 13 years. Moreover, it is also alleged by the Revisionist/OP that the Complainant/Respondent submitted RTI petition in 2021 i.e., after 17 years, so the case or the petition is not maintainable and time-barred. The Ld. Lower Court, Cooch Behar (DCDRC) dismissed the petition dated 12/5/22 of the Revisionist/OP opining that the cause of action actually started from 16/6/21, the date of receiving the RTI reply by the Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Deb) which is within the period of limitation and hence not time-barred.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Ld. Lower Forum bank authority filed a revision petition in the Siliguri Circuit Bench of SCDRC against the said order dated 16/8/22 of the Ld. Lower Forum, DCDRC, Cooch Behar.
Decisions with Reasons
Before going into the details cardinal points need to be attended is as follows:
- Whether the Complainant/Respondent opened 3 FDRs in the said bank of the Revisionist/OP.
- Whether the maturity value of the same has been paid to the Complainant and transferred to the SBI A/c of the Complainant.
- Whether the said FDRs were renewed/reinvested or not.
- Whether the said Petition of the Respondent/Complainant is time barred.
It is undisputed and agreed by both the Parties that the Complainant/Respondent opened 3 FDRs (FCNR-B) and it was also accepted by the Revisionist/OP.
The Revisionist/OP could not confirm beyond doubt that the maturity value had been paid or transferred to the SB A/c of the Complainant or the Revisionist/OP could not confirm whether 3 FDRs were renewed or re-invested. The main contention of the Revisionist/OP is that the entire banking system has been fully computerized and old records are not traceable/available. But this is not convincing, credible and impressive argument as the old records should have been updated after full computerization and not their eradication/disappearance. The bank authority has updated all its assets and liabilities through computerized system. However, there are also lapses and the latches on behalf of both the Parties but that does not debar an investor (Complainant/Respondent) to deprive of his share on the grounds of delay and non- traceability/non-availability of the records at present. Moreover, the Bank Authority could not prove beyond doubt that the amount on maturity has been transferred to the S.B. A/c of the Respondent/Complainant. Bank Authority also could not prove undoubtedly that the matured amount has been reinvested/rolled over.
Since the Complainant/Respondent filed RTI petition and the reply of which not being satisfactory, the Respondent/Complainant (Mr. Ajoy Deb) approached to the Ld. Lower Court for redressal of his grievances. I am of the considered view that the case is not time-barred because the cause of action actually started from the first reply of the letter of CPIO/Bank dated 16/6/21. So, it is crystal clear that the actual cause of action started from 16/6/21. So, I do not find any reason to deviate from the order of the Ld. Lower Court which was passed on 16/8/22 rejecting the petition dated 12/5/22 of the Revisionist/OP. So, I am of considered view that it is within the period of limitation and not time-barred. Moreover, the Ld. Lower Court rightly pointed out that the Revisionist/OP could have raised the point of objection regarding the question of the maintainability of the case in their written version instead of submitting separate petition dated 12/5/22 which is neither tenable nor legally entertainable.
Hence,
it is ordered
that the Revision Petition of the Revisionist fails to succeed on contest, but without cost.
Both the Parties should approach to the Ld. Lower Court for final order/judgement in connection with CC/48/2021.
Ld. DCDRC, Cooch Behar is also directed to pass final order/judgement within 3 (three) months after hearing both the Parties to its convenience after observing all the formalities, norms and Rules, etc.
Inform all the Parties concerned accordingly with a copy to them through hand delivery/speed post without cost.
A copy of the same is to be sent to the Ld. DCDRC, Cooch Behar immediately.
Thus, the Revision application in connection with Case No. A/110/2022 stands disposed of.
