View 13556 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 13556 Cases Against State Bank Of India
View 24612 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24612 Cases Against Bank Of India
Sangeeta Vashisht filed a consumer case on 24 Feb 2015 against State Bank of India in the Rupnagar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/14/145 and the judgment uploaded on 25 Mar 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTT. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ROPAR
Consumer Complaint No. : 145 of 13.11.2014
Date of decision : 24.02.2015
Sangeeta Vashisht D/o Balraj Vashisht, now wife of Rahul Sharma, resident of Ward No. 7, House No. 8, Kainour Road, Morinda, Tehsil Chamkaur Sahib, District Rupnagar.
......Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India, Branch Morinda through its Branch Manager.
....Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
SMT. SHAVINDER KAUR, MEMBER
ARGUED BY
Sh. Hemant Chaudhary Advocate, counsel for complainant
Sh. Sunil Bhanot Advocate, counsel for Opposite Party
ORDER
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Smt. Sangeeta Vashisht has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ only) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘the O.P.’ only) praying for the following reliefs:-
i) To pay Rs.2190/- of FD amount along with interest @ 13% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization,
ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice,
iii) To pay Rs.5000/- as cost of complaint,
iv) Any other relief, which this Forum may deem fit proper.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 07.06.1994, she being minor at the time, an FDR for a sum of Rs.2190/- bearing No.748433, was got issued in her name by her father. The said FDR got matured on 16.05.1998, but she could not get the same encashed. As per common practice of the bank, the said FDR was renewed on different dates. In the month of August 2014, when she went to the O.P. to get the same encashed, but it refused to do so. A legal notice was also got issued by her through her counsel to the O.P. on 03.09.2014, which was received by the O.P., as is evident from the Acknowledgement placed on record. The amount is still lying with it, as such, there is continuous cause of action and by not paying the amount of above said FDR the O.P. has committed deficiency in service and has adopted unfair trade practice, due to which she has suffered mental & physical harassment and also financial loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. On being put to notice, the O.P. filed written statement in the form of affidavit of Sh. Anuj Kumar Aggarwal, Chief Manager, taking preliminary objections; that the complaint is not maintainable as complicated questions of law and facts are involved in it; that it does not lie and is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant has no locus standi & cause of action to file the same; that there has been no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and the complainant has filed a false complaint with ulterior motive and malafide intention to harm & harass the O.P.’s officials by concealing the true facts from this Forum; that the complainant had never made or gave any sort of complaint or representation since 1998, as such, the complaint is hopelessly barred by time and that the complainant is not consumer, as defined in the Act. On merits, it is admitted that originally the STDR, photocopy of which has been produced alongwith the instant complaint, was issued by the O.P. prior to 16.5.1992 and was, got renewed upto 16.5.1998. It is stated that originally the STDR in question was got issued by the guardian of the complainant, namely, Balraj Vashisht, in the name of the complainant, who was minor at that time, and he had got the same renewed w.e.f 16.05.1992 on 01.06.1994 for a period of 72 months. Thereafter, said Balraj Vashisht, father and natural guardian of the minor, obtained a duplicate STDR on 12.12.1997, on the ground that the original had been lost and thereafter got the same encashed on 18.05.1998. Similarly, Sneh Lata, who is the wife of R.D.Vashishat, brother of said Balraj Vashishat, had obtained STDR on the same dates, in the name of Ritu Vashishat, her minor daughter, and also obtained duplicate copy of the STDR, on the same ground and got the same encashed on the same date i.e 18.05.1998 alongwith the STDR in question. It is well know to the complainant that as per rule of the bank, it does not keep record regarding the vouchers of closed accounts, after lapse of 10 years period. The complainant and her father are clever & greedy persons and by misrepresenting and concealing true facts, kept the original STDR with them, with ulterior motive and obtained duplicate copy of STDR on 12.12.1997 and got the same en-cashed on 18.05.1998 along with the STDR of Ritu Vashishat. Thereafter, the complainant had remained silent for more than 16 years, after the maturity of the alleged STDR. It is settled law that a party, who conceals facts from the court, is not entitled to any relief. It is admitted that legal notice issued by the complainant was received by the O.P. It is further stated that in the month of August, 2014 the complainant alongwith her father had visited the O.P. and they were informed about the above mentioned facts by its officials and they left the premises of the O.P. fully satisfied, but lateron, taking benefit of the fact that the O.P. has destroyed its 10 years old record, as per bank norm & rules, had filed the instant complaint out of greediness. Rest of the allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer has been made for dismissal of the same with special cost, the same being false & without any merit.
4. On being called upon to do so, the learned counsel for the complainant tendered her affidavit, photocopies of documents Ex. C1 to C5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered affidavit of Sh. Anuj Kumar Aggarwal, Chief Manager, Ex. OP-1, photocopies of documents Ex. OP-2 & OP-3 and closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.
6. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that on 07.06.1994, the complainant got issued an FDR for a sum of Rs.2,190/- from the O.P. The amount in the said FDR was deposited by her father, as she was minor at that time. The same got matured on 16.05.1998, but the same was not got encashed by her, as such, as per practice of the bank, it got renewed, automatically, from time to time. In the month of August 2014, when she approached the O.P. for encashment of the said FDR, the official of the O.P. refused to disburse the amount of the said FDR to her. Thereafter, a legal notice dated 03.09.2014 was served upon the O.P., which was duly received by it, as is evident from the acknowledgment. By not disbursing the due amount of FDR, the O.P. not only committed deficiency in service, but also indulged into unfair trade practice, due to which, she has suffered mental agony and physical harassment and also financial loss, therefore, the O.P. is not only liable to pay the due amount of the FDR, but is also liable to pay compensation along with litigation expenses.
7. The learned counsel for the O.P. vehemently argued that the complainant has concealed the true & material facts from this Forum, because Sh. Balraj Vashistha, father & the natural guardian of the complainant had originally deposited the amount in the form of STDR in the name of her minor daughter, namely, Sangeeta. The said STDR was got renewed on 07.06.1994 for a period of 72 months, to be matured on 16.05.1998. On 12.12.1997, said Sh. Balraj Vashishta, obtained a duplicate STDR, on the ground that original STDR has been lost and thereafter, got it encashed on 16.05.1998 itself, same is evident from the copy of relevant ledger Ex.OP-2. He further submitted that duplicate STDR was issued by the O.P., on the request of the father/guardian of the complainant, who had got issued the same initially. Since the record of relating the STDR in question was 10 years old and as per bank rules & norms the O.P. has already weeded out the same as per Chapter 9 of Fixed Assets, Management of Stationery & Records (Ex.OP-3), therefore, unable to place on record the documents, on the basis of which duplicate STDR was issued to the father & natural guardian of the complainant. In the month of August, 2014, the complainant approached the O.P. alongwith original STDR for encashment of the same, whereas the father of the complainant had already got the said FDR encahsed on 16.5.1998 only. He further submitted that the complainant and her father/guardian, purposely, retained the original STDR with them and got issued a duplicate one by misrepresentation and concealing the material facts. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had remained silent for 16 years and purposely she has not placed on record the affidavit of her father, to clarify the position under what circumstances, he had got issued a duplicate STDR and then got the same encashed. Thus, the complaint being meritless be dismissed with costs.
8. The stand of the complainant is that the original FDR issued by the O.P., a copy of which has been placed on record as Ex.C5, is still with her and the same has not been encahsed by the O.P. inspite of her request whereas the allegation of the O.P. is that the complainant and her father by misrepresenting & concealing true facts kept the original STDR with them and had got issued a duplicate STDR on 12.12.1997, with ulterior motive and also got the same encashed on 18.5.1998. It may be stated that neither the complainant has placed on record the affidavit of her father to prove that her father had not got a duplicate STDR issued or encahsed the same, nor the O.P. has placed on record any document to prove the fact that the complainant and her father had got issued the duplicate STDR by making mis-representation & got the same encashed in-connivance with each other. In the absence of any documentary proof, it is very difficult to arrive at a conclusion, whether the duplicate STDR was got issued & encashed by misrepresentation by the father of the complainant in connivance with her, with ulterior motive, or not. Moreover, to prove the allegation of mis-representation, leading of voluminous evidence, examination and cross-examination of the witnesses is required. Since the proceedings before this Forum are summary in nature, the complex questions of law & facts involved in this case cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum. In the case—‘Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Munimahesh Patel’, IV (2006) CPJ 1 (SC), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the proceedings before the Consumer Fora are essentially summary in nature and the mater having complex factual position could not be examined by the Consumer Fora and the appropriate Forum was the civil court.
9. In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. The complainant may seek her remedy before the appropriate civil court, if she so desires.
The certified copies of this order be issued to the parties forthwith, free of costs, as permissible under the rules, and the file be indexed & consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED (NEENA SANDHU)
Dated 24.02.2015 PRESIDENT
(SHAVINDER KAUR)
MEMBER.
�
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.