BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 446 of 2015
Date of Institution: 21.7.2015
Date of Decision: 03.08.2016
Sh.Inder Chopra aged 70 years S/o Sh.Bishan Dass Chopra R/o FF81, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India hving its Branch Office at Ranjit Avenue, amritsa through its Branch Manager
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant : Sh.Vikram Puri, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party : Sh.Y.P.Kwatra,Advocate
Coram:
Sh.S.S.Panesar President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S.Panessar,President.
- Sh.Inder Chopra complainant has filed the present complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act on the allegations that the complainant obtained one STDR (Special Term Deposit) No. 625300 dated 3.3.2009 for a sum of Rs. 20000/- for 60 months i.e. five years period with the date of maturity being 3.3.2014 with maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/- from the opposite party under Tax Saving Scheme. As such the complainant having hired the service of the opposite party and he is consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complainant is competent to invoke the present complaint before this forum. It is submitted over here that when said STDR amount became matured on 3.3.2014, complainant went to the office of the opposite party and requested them to renew the said STDR for a further period of one thousand days or in the alternative to release the maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/- . But without any valid and legal reasons the officials of the opposite party lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other . The complainant also produced the original document before the opposite party but inspite of making number of requests by the complainant, the opposite party instead of listening to the genuine requests of the complainant, kept of harassing the complainant. In this regard complainant moved an application with the opposite party on 11.4.2014 and another on 19.12.2014 and also on 19.3.2015 but till date the opposite party has neither renewed the STDR nor have disbursed the maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/- in favour of the complainant. The abovesaid action on the part of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and it has caused mental agony, harassment and inconvenience to the complainant. The complainant has sought for following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
- Opposite party be directed to release the maturity amount regarding the STDR No. 625300 having maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/- alongwith interest ;
- Opposite party be also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- on account of mental agony, harassment and inconvenience suffered by him besides litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 5000/- may also be awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and contested the complaint by filing written version in which preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has already withdrawn the amount which was erroneously deposited in cash in SB account No. 30048461645 instead of STDR account No. 30698955044. The complainant came to know the facts on that date and he withdrew the amount on the same day knowingly well that this amount has been deposited erroneously in the saving account and not in the STDR account and the bank also issued the STDR of Rs. 20000/- to the complainant . On merits, it is stated that no doubt the complainant came to the office and requested for the renewal of that STDR and when the opposite party took the FDR from the complainant and searched the record of the bank for renewal of that FDR, the opposite party came to know that the STDR account No. 30698955044 was opened on 3.3.2009 and simultaneously STDR No. 625300 issued to Mr.Chopra without ensuring that the cash had been deposited in STDR account. Both the account of the STDR and SB were mentioned on pay in slip. The receipt cashier erroneously deposited the cash in the SDO account No. 30048461645 instead of STDR account No. 30698955044 of Sh.Inder Kumar Chopra which was withdrawn by him on the same day . The STDR was signed by Sh. K.S.Khurana (PF: 2914085), who is presently posted at RBO Pathankot. The maker of the STDR was Smt.Gurinder Kaur, who is posted at Amritsar Bus Stand Branch. The authorized signatory of the STDR was Sh.K.S.Khurana, who is presently posted at State Bank of India, Regional Business office, Pathankot. At that time Sh.Anil Chadda was the the Chief Manager of the bank, who is relative of the complainant. The matter was investigated by Mr.Ajit Singh Alliwadhi, Chief Manager of State Bank of India, Main Branch, Amritsar. The details facts have already given in the preliminary objections as well as in reply to the others paras which may be read as part of this para. No cause of action ever accrued to the complainant for filing the instant complaint. It is, therefore, prayed that complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Vikram Puri,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sunil Kwarta,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Satbir Pawar, Chief Manager Ex.OP1, copy of request detail Ex.OP2, copy of statement of account Ex.OP3, copy of voucher dated 3.3.2009 Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file as well as written synopsis of arguments submitted by ld.counsel for the complainant.
6. On the basis of the evidence on record, ld.counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that complainant obtained one STDR (Special Term Deposit) No. 625300 for a sum of Rs. 20000/- for 60 months i.e. for five years period with date of maturity being 3.3.2014 with maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/- from the opposite party under Tax Saving Scheme. Copy of the STDR account for Ex.C-2. The STDR amount became mature on 3.3.2014. The complainant went to the office of the opposite party and requested them to renew the STDR for a further period of one thousand days or in the alternative to release the maturity amount of Rs. 31,982/-. But, however, officials of the opposite party lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other on the ground that record regarding the said STDR is not available with them. Not only that the complainant produced the original documents with the opposite party but still the officials of the opposite party harassed the complainant. In this regard, the complainant moved numerous applications with the opposite party on 11.4.2014, 19.12.2014 and 19.3.2015, copies whereof are Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5 respectively on record. But however, opposite party has neither renewed the said STDR not released the maturity amount till date , in favour of the complainant. It is vehemently contended that the said act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and also falls within the purview of unfair trade practice. It is,therefore, contended that opposite party may be directed to release the maturity amount regarding STDR No.625300 to the tune of Rs. 31,982/- alongwith interest and the complainant may also be awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- besides granting litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum.
7. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint contained contentious questions of law and facts , which require voluminous evidence for deciding the same . The witnesses also require to be cross examined at length. The complaint proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature and this Forum cannot delve deep into the matter or allow the cross examination of numerous witnesses or production of voluminous documents. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited Rs. 20000/- with the opposite party with a request to issue STDR for a period of five years in Tax Saving Scheme and accordingly, opposite party issued the requisite STDR in his favour and on maturity of the STDR in question, the complainant went to the bank and requested them to either renew the STDR for a further period of one thousand days or release the maturity amount to the tune of Rs. 31,982/- in his favour. But however, opposite party did not oblige him and stated that the amount so deposited by the complainant, has been deposited in his SB account No. 30048461645 . It is further stated that the said amount has also been withdrawn by the complainant on the date of deposit itself. Copy of statement of account Ex.OP3 bears witness to the said fact. No amount was deposited against STDR in question and the STDR in question has been erroneously issued by the bank authorities in favour of the complainant. Since the matter releates to intricate questions of law and facts . A probe into the matter is required to be made. As such , this Forum cannot exercise its jurisdiction to decide the intricate questions of law and facts in a summary manner. Reliance in this regard is placed upon Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel 2006(IV) CPJ page 1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that :-
“Proceedings before the commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.”
Their lordships have further held that :-
“The nature of the proceedings before the commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents. Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of Law and not by the Commission.”
8. The nature of the dispute, in the present complaint, is squarely covered by the law laid down by their lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgement supra. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 1(2004) CPJ page 101 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble National Commission in a revision petition titled as R.D. Papers Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. in para No.7 of the judgement which reads as under:-
“After going through the complaint and the written version, it appears to us that the complaint raises complicated questions of facts which cannot be decided by us in our summary jurisdiction. It may be though the amount in this case is in few lacs and when we are receiving complaints involving crores of rupees, but then enormous evidence would be required in the present case especially in respect of allegation of forgery made by the complainant and denied by the Insurance Company.”
9. As such instant complaint is relegated to the Civil Court for deciding the matter in accordance with law . Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 3.08.2016
/R/
