SHYAMAL KUMAR GHOSH, MEMBER

The instant Consumer Case has been filed by the Complainant against the  sole opposite party/State Bank of India praying for certain reliefs which are reproduced as follows :

“  It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble State Commission  may be pleased to grant the following reliefs.

1. Order directing the opposite party to pay the complainant the sum of Rs. 89,78,708/-  as stated in paragraph no. 25 therein above together with interest thereon @ 24 % per annum or at such other rate as the Hon’ble State Commission may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case from  01.11.2012 until realization.
2. By further directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in addition to as prayed for in prayer (a) as above as and by way of aggravated damages as stated in paragraphs herein above.
3. An enquiry in the claim for awarding punitive damages against the opposite party and order  such sum of money as may be found due and payable to the complainant on such enquiry .
4. In the alternative a direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in addition to as prayed for in prayers  (a) & (b) as above as and by way of punitive damages as stated in paragraphs herein above.
5. Costs of  and/incidental to this complaint ,  be directed to be paid by the opposite party.
6. Pass such further or order or issue such direction or direction as to this Hon’ble Commission in the interest of justice may deem fit and proper.

And the complainant as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

The brief facts of the case is that  the complainant was a bonafide consumer under the OP/Bank and he obtained  some fix deposit  certificates from the aforesaid bank.  The complainant took an appointment with the AGM of Bank concerned on 09.07.1997 and handed over  13 F.D.s  alongwith  relevant documents and papers to the AGM.  The complainant has demanded payment in respect of  all of them but the  then  AGM  expressed his inability to do the same.  The complainant further visited the office of concerned OP/ Bank but to no effect. The OP refused to make any payment or to renew the same with higher return.  The  OP/Bank is liable to pay interest @ Rs. 24% p.a. to the complainant for  wrongful detention,  non-payment or late payment during the period from 9^th July, 1997 to 17^th May,2006 when the aforesaid 13 TDRs  were paid less  to the tune of Rs.3,291/-  ( Rs. 6,16,029.00 - Rs. 6,12,738.00) which was supposed to be paid on 9^th July, 1997 instead of May,2006 and transfer to its Sitapur Branch leaving aside deposited amount of Rs. 24,746.00+ Rs. 49,357.00  + Rs. 73,068.66 and Rs. 10,000.00.  Be it mentioned here that the aforesaid amount are still unpaid  and unaccounted till date.

The fact remains that Rs. 3,291/-  is still due  from the end of OP/Bank and the complainant is entitled to get back the said amount together with interest thereon @ 24% p.a. until realisation of a sum of Rs. 13,510/-  and the OP is liable to repay the same to the complainant forthwith . However, the elaborate calculation stated  in the petition of complaint clearly indicates that the complainant  is entitled to receive  the amount of Rs. 89,78,708/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from 01.11.2012 till full realisation which is clearly stated in paragraph no. 25 of the petition of complaint.

It is the further case of the complainant that he filed a complaint before the Delhi State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission on about 29.01.2009 against the opposite party which was registered as CC case being No. 09/26. Thereafter , at the admission stage Hon’ble Delhi State Commission , by an order dated 17.03.2009  was pleased to direct the complainant to file separate complaints in respect of the TDRs and F.D.Rs  before the competent Ld. District Forum.  An appeal being No. FA/302/2009 was preferred against the order impugned dated 17.03.2009 before the Hon’ble NCDRC and  Hon’ble NCDRC, by order dated 01.10.2009 ,  was pleased  to set aside the impugned order and the complaint  was remitted back to the Delhi State Commission to consider afresh on merits in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

By an order dated 17.08.2010,  the Hon’ble Delhi State Commission held that the Delhi Fora has no territorial jurisdiction and in  FA  being No. FA/370/2010 ( arising out of order dated 17.08.2010 in CC case No. 09/26 of State Commission, Delhi) the Hon’ble NCDRC was pleased to agree with the aforesaid view of the State Commission and liberty was given to the complainant/appellant to approach before the appropriate  Forum for seeking redressal of this grievance within 60 days  from today ( i.e. 31.10.2012) . Thereafter, the complainant filed the instant case before this Commission praying for reliefs as prayed for.

By filing this petition of complaint ,  the complainant stated that there is a clear gross negligence  and deficiency in service on the part of State Bank of India/OP as  the concerned Bank  has failed to meet up the demand of the complainant till date.  Hence, the case.

The sole opposite party /State Bank of  India contested this case by filing written version stating interalia that the complainant was an account holder of his fixed deposit belongs to State Bank of India Kolkata main Branch.  The complainant in the year 2006 provided an official instruction to the OP/Bank to transfer fixed deposit from SBI, Kolkata Main Branch to Sitapur Branch.  As per instruction of the  complainant,  OP transferred the same to SBI , Sitapur Branch.

By filing written version the OP also stated that as per available records, the FD in the name of complainant was already closed in the year 2006 at SBI Kolkata Main Branch  and the same was transferred to  SBI , Sitapur Branch.  The relationship between the complainant and opposite party/SBI Kolkata Main Branch was closed in the year 2016.  As per record , now the complainant is an account holder of SBI Sitapur Branch situated at Uttar Pradesh.  The Hon’ble State Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain this matter. It is specifically denied and disputed that  the amount of STDR was unpaid by the Bank.  That on 17.05.2006,  13 STDR was paid to the complainant and the same was  transferred to SBI, Sitapur Brach at U.P.

By filing written version, the OP/SBI stated that  the cause of action arose in the year 1988 and 1997 and as such  the aforesaid matter is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The complainant prayed for exorbitant claim.  The  petition of complaint   has no basis at all.  The CC case which was filed by the complainant  is harassive, frivolous and vexatious    in nature u/s 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Rather, the complainant is bound to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the opposite party/Bank. There is no gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party/Bank.  Accordingly, the OP prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with exemplary cost.

The complainant, in person, at the time of final hearing has urged that  he was a bonafide consumer under the OP/Bank and he has obtained some fixed deposit certificates from the OP/SBI. The complainant has demanded payment in respect of all fixed deposit but the then AGM expressed his inability to make the said payment. The OP/Bank refused  to renew the same with higher return. The complainant further argued that the OP/Bank is liable to pay interest @ Rs. 24% p.a. to the complainant for wrongful detention, non-payment  or late payment  during the period from 9^th July, 1997  to 17^th May, 2006 when the aforesaid 13 TDRs were paid less to the tune of Rs. 3,291/- only.  The shortfall amount Rs. 3,291/- was supposed to be paid on 09.07.1997 instead of May, 2006 and transferred the same to  Sitapur Branch leaving aside deposited amount of Rs. 24,746/-  +  Rs. 49,357/- + Rs. 73,069 and Rs. 10,000/- only . The aforesaid amount are still unpaid and unaccounted till date. There is a clear gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP/SBI and accordingly the complainant , in person, has prayed for relief against the OP/SBI which is clearly enumerated in the prayer portion of the petition  of complaint . 

Ld. Counsel appearing for the OP/SBI  has argued that the account of the fixed deposit in the name of the complainant was already closed  in the year 2006 at SBI Kolkata Main Branch and the same was transferred to SBI, Sitapur Branch. Ld. Counsel further argued that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite  party SBI, Kolkata Main Branch  already came to an end in the year 2006.  As per record, now the complainant is an account holder of SBI, Sitapur Branch situated at Uttar Pradesh and as such the Hon’ble State Commission has got no jurisdiction to entertain the matter.  On 17.05.2006 the 13 STDRs  were paid to the complainant and the same was transferred to the SBI, Sitapur Branch at U.P.   The cause of action arose in the year 1988 and 1997 and as such  the aforesaid matter  is hopelessly barred by limitation.  The Ld. Advocate also urged that u/s 26 of the C.P.Act , 1986  the petition of complaint should be dismissed on the ground of frivolous  and  vexatious complaint . Furthermore that the complainant has prayed for exorbitant  claim which is totally baseless  and has no legs to stand upon. Accordingly, Ld. Advocate for the OP/SBI  has prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint.

We have considered the submissions of both sides.

We have meticulously perused the materials available on record.

The final hearing has been concluded.

It is an admitted fact that the complainant was a bonafide account holder of 13 STDRs alongwith other 4 STDRs which is clearly reflected in reply for and on behalf of the complainant against the questionnaire  filed by OP/SBI Main Branch.

In reply  against the query /question no. 3 , the complainant fairly  stated that all of its deposits were subject to premature payment, cancellation and transfer as the exigencies of the situation  and that would be arisen  depending upon  the option of the  depositor/deponent/complainant.  In the said reply, the complainant further submitted that since the OP/SBI  Kolkata Main Branch failed to make  premature payment on 09.07.1997, 29.12.1997 and 20.05.1998 as a last resort  and alternatively the complainant was compelled to renew the same.  The complainant, in his reply, further stated that the complainant /deponent had no such option left but to ask for transfer of the same to Sitapur Branch.  The said transfer was made by way of  three drafts as part payment without supplying  proper particulars  and an amount of Rs. 3,291/- was paid  less/short   as explained in paragraph no. 9 of the petition of complaint.  Thus, the transfer was not made in conformity with the instructions given by the deponent/complainant on each of 13 STDRs.

From the above reply, it is crystal clear to us that the complainant has prayed for transfer of the aforesaid STDRs from SBI Kolkata Main Branch to Sitapur Branch of Uttar Pradesh.  Regarding this matter, we have carefully perused some vital documents ( statement of accounts in the name of complainant)  issued by SBI Kolkata Main Brach wherefrom it appears to us that the Kolkata Main Branch has already closed all accounts  and transferred the same  to SBI, Sitapur Branch in the year 2006. At this juncture,  it should be decided that whether  there is any gross negligence and deficiency in the service on the part of the OP/SBI Kolkata Main Branch from the date of the opening of the accounts till the year ,  2006.

From the four corners of the record and the various letters issued by the complainant , it is fact  that the complainant on several occasions after maturity of the STDRs has requested the OP/SBI Kolkata Main Branch to renew the same but  the OP  has failed to perform their duties properly and in this regard we  can rely upon  the letter dated 03.07.2001  issued by  the complainant addressed to the OP/SBI Kolkata Main Branch wherein the complainant requested for renewal of the STDRs. But the concerned officer expressed his inability to renew the same. 

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is very clear to us that  the complainant has suffered  irreparable financial loss and injury causing gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP/SBI Main Branch Kolkata.

The concerned OP is also negligent  due to non-payment of Rs. 3,291/-  only to the complainant.

Keeping in view of the aforesaid observation  and for finality of the litigation , we are constrained to allow the CC Case   in part on contest against the OP/SBI Main Branch Kolkata with cost.

Hence,

It is

                                                    ORDERED

That the OP/SBI Main Branch Kolkata is hereby directed to pay Rs. 3,291/- (Rupees three thousand two hundred ninety-one ) only to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order alongwith interest  @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of this petition of complaint i.e. from 20.12.2012 till full realisation.

That the OP/SBI Main Branch Kolkata is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-  (Rupees two lakhs) only to the complainant within the stipulated period of time for  causing mental pain and agony  and to pay litigation cost  to the tune Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees twenty thousand) only to the complainant within the stipulated  period of time.

In case of non-compliance of the aforesaid order from the end of OP/ SBI Main Branch Kolkata, the complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution.

Thus the CC case stands disposed of accordingly as per above observations.

Note accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.