26/06/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

             This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Alipore, South 24-Parganas in case no.CC 240 of 2012 allowing the complaint with cost of Rs.2,000/- and the OPs were directed to refund the TDR amount of Rs.73,000/- plus a sum of Rs.3,11,546/- towards interest and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation within 15 days from the date of order failing which the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that the Complainant No.1 was previously a senior officer of the State Bank of India.  The Complainant No.1 along with his wife jointly purchased 11 TDRs from SBI, Mominpur Branch, the particulars of which have been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition of complaint.  After maturity the Complainant No.1 requested the OP No.2 to renew the TDRs for 36 months and after expiry of 36 months to go on renewing for further period until further instruction from the Complainant No.1.  But the OP No.1 failed and neglected to comply with the Complainant’s request and deliberately caused loss and damage to the Complainant.  From 1999 to 2010 in spite of oral persuasion there was no result and on 17/02/11 the Complainant No.1 personally met the OP No.2 and handed over a representation to him with 11 copies of TDRs.  But, unfortunately, the OP No.2 failed and neglected to comply with the Complainant’s request.  For the said reasons, the complaint was filed before the Learned District Forum. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant Bank has submitted that from the year 1999 to 2010 the Complainant No.1 allegedly orally pursued the matter, but no letter was written by him to the Bank.  It is submitted that there is no trace in the office of the Appellants about the said TDRs.  It is contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose on 19/04/99.  It is submitted that the old record can be preserved for 8 years only. 

            It is submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that Complainant No.1 was a senior office of the Bank and it was renewed from 1996 to 1999 and as per averment made in paragraph 3 of the complaint there was instruction from the Complainant to go on renewing for further period.  It is contended that the Bank did not renew it in the year 1999.  It is contended that the Bank did not issue any letter to the Complainant to take refund of the amount.  It is submitted that the Bank stands in the position of a trustee and since the Bank did not refund the amount to the Complainant the cause of action is continuing one. 

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.  It is the specific contention of the Bank that the old documents beyond 8 years are not preserved and there is no trace of such FDRs as stated by the Complainant.  The Complainant ultimately wrote a letter on 07/02/11 to the Bank and the Bank had sent a reply dated 31/10/11 stating that attempt was being made to find out the entries of the said old TDRs and the matter has been referred to the controlling office.  It was also stated in the said letter that the matter could be settled with the co-operation of the Complainant.  The copies of the TDRs have been submitted by the Complainant.  The Bank could not show any document to prove that the payment on maturity against the TDRs had already been made.  It is the specific contention of the Complainant that there was standing instruction to go on renewing the TDRs until further instruction.  Since the Bank is not in a position to show that there was renewal of the TDRs or that payment thereof had been made, we are of the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank.  The Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order. 

            The Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.