Kundan Kumar Kumai

This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 preferred against the final order and judgement passed on 24/11/2021 in CC/15/2018, by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Alipurduar.

Brief facts of the Appellant’s case, is that the Respondent had purchased, in the month of August 1998, from the Appellant/Bank, a Fixed Deposit Certificate under the name “Special Term Deposit Receipt” bearing no. SD/A 41674921, amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only with the maturity value of Rs.22,114/- (Rupees twenty-two thousand one hundred fourteen) only on 10/08/2005. After completion of formalities, a Certificate had been issued to the Respondent. The Respondent had then deposited the Term Deposit Certificate to the N.F. Railway as security. After completion of the construction, the N.F. Rly. had returned the said Certificate to the Respondent, who had deposited the same in the Appellant/Bank in the year 2005. The Respondent was under the impression that the maturity amount had been credited to his account, but found that the same had not been done in the year 2006-07. Thereafter, the Respondent started visiting the Appellant/Bank, but nothing had been done and finally on 12/09/2016, had submitted a written representation which was also not fulfilled. The Respondent further requested the Appellant/Bank to deposit the amount with interest, but the same was ignored and thereby caused deficiency in service. Finding no alternative, the Respondent filed this instant case with necessary prayers mentioned therein.

The Appellant/Bank contested the case by filing written version, wherein they admitted the purchase of STDR for Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, with the maturity date of 10/08/2005, but as the same was not deposited, the amount could not be credited. For which reason, the instant case was barred by limitation. It was prayed that the case be dismissed.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the evidence on record the Ld. D.C.D.R.F. Alipurduar, passed the impugned order whereby the Appellant/Bank was directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) only, with interest within 30 (thirty) days, from the date of the order.

Being aggrieved by the above order, the Appellant/Bank preferred the instant appeal on the ground, that the Ld. Forum below, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                                                     Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant at the time of final hearing had submitted that the Appellant/Bank was ready and willing to process the Respondent’s claim of maturity amount Rs. 71,485/- (Rupees seventy-one four hundred eighty-five) only, instead of Rs.1,05,000/- (Rupees one lakh five thousand) only and that there was delay in submitting the original Term Deposit Certificate for maturity as it was submitted only in the year 2008. Moreover, the Appellant/Bank had no control in the software and updating technologies and over the Centralized Bank Master System of the Bank and for which reason the Appellant/Bank, should not be held responsible for the deficiency in service. He had laid reliance in the judgement passed in Chandi Prasad Uniyal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Ors. by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent had supported the impugned judgement on the ground, that the Appellant/Bank had raised the issue of non-deposit of the Term Deposit Certificate which the Appellant/Bank had failed to prove and the Appellant/Bank was estopped from raising any other issues at the appeal stage.

The only issue raised by the Appellant/Bank, before the Ld. Lower Forum was the non-deposit of the STDR, but at the same time was agreeable to consider the repayment of the amount of Rs. 71,485/- (Rupees seventy-one four hundred eighty-five) only. This clearly shows that the non-deposit of the STDR was not an issue specially when the Ld. Forum below had decided that the STDR had been deposited on time. Under the circumstance, the Case made out by the Appellant/Bank at this appeal stage would be barred by the principle of estoppel. That apart the Ruling cited

on behalf of the Appellant/Bank also did not come to the rescue of the Appellant/Bank, as it was based on different set of facts. Hence, the Appeal is bound to fail, but at the same time when the Respondent had been granted the deposited amount with interest, till the date of filing of the Case, the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, as compensation for mental agony and sufferings, appears to be excessive, in the sense, that the Respondent had already been granted the deposited amount with interest.

Hence, the impugned order needs to be modified to that extent only and the appeal succeeds in part.

                                                                                       It is therefore,

                                                                                       ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed in part, on contest, but without cost.

The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellant/Bank be directed to comply with the impugned order without paying the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of service of this order.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Alipurduar for necessary information.

The statutory amount deposited while filing the appeal be returned from whom it was received.

Jt. Registrar, W.B.S.C.D.R.C., Siliguri to do the needful for the return of the amount.