1.      The Respondent was duly served for the date 01.06.2017 and vakalatnama had been filed on her behalf.  However, neither she nor her Counsel is attending to court and notice of default was also issued to her.  Today also, none is present on behalf of the Respondent.  The matter is old related to year 2012 and hence, arguments on behalf of the Petitioner are heard.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent and her husband had a joint account with the Petitioner Camp Branch

-2-

Pune.  The Bank Account number was 8258/25 (NRE).  Husband of the complainant Respondent had opened Three Fixed Deposit Accounts of sum of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,000/- in the joint name, which were to mature on 07.03.1991.  The husband of the Respondent unfortunately died in an accident on 26.11.1989.  Before his death, the husband of the Respondent had taken an overdraft facility from the Petitioner Bank.  After the death of her husband, the Respondent wrote a letter dated 23.12.1989 asking the Petitioner to adjust the deposits, which was taken as security for the overdraft facility.  Accordingly, the Petitioner Bank adjusted the deposits and the remaining balance amount after such adjustment was credited in the Saving Bank Account of the Respondent.  Vide letter dated 14.06.1993, the Respondent sought details of the deposits and transaction crediting in the overdraft account.  This letter was replied by the Petitioner Bank vide reply dated 23.06.1993.  The Petitioner Bank informed the Respondent that the details of the accounts of which she was seeking information had been destroyed and whatever information and documents were available were supplied to the Respondent along with this reply.  Aggrieved, the Respondent filed the

-3-

Complaint before the District Forum on 21.02.2008.  The plea taken by the Petitioner was that the record was destroyed as it was 15 years old and that as per the Manual Instructions of the Bank, they were liable to furnish such information only upto eight years.

3.      Parties led their evidence and on the basis of the evidence led by the parties, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint and held as under:

“It is established that the complainant has sought from the respondent bank details of savings bank A/C and fixed deposit receipts which are 15 years old.  According to the Manual of Instructions of the respondent bank, they are liable to furnish such information only upto 8 years.  Hence, accepting the complaint and directing the respondent bank to furnish details of saving bank A/c and fixed deposit receipts would not be doing justice.”

4.      The order of the District Forum was carried into Appeal by the Respondent vide Appeal No.09/800 and the State Commission set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner to supply information to the Complainant of the Saving Bank Account No.8258/25(NRE) including adjustment of the loan account of the Complainant within a period of 60 days and also directed them to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental stress, agony and inconvenience suffered and a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

-4-

5.      Petitioner is aggrieved by these directions and has filed the present Revision Petition.

6.      It is submitted by the Petitioner that the Bank has acted as per directions of the Respondent and had adjusted the FDs which were held by the Petitioner as a security towards the overdraft facilities, as per the instructions of the Respondent.  It is submitted that it was done on the written request which is not disputed and that she was satisfied with the said act of the petitioner because no dispute was raised by her for many years and it was only for the first time in the year 1993 when she demanded details of the transactions.  Even after receiving reply from the petitioner that they did not possess the information, no complaints of any nature was filed by her and it was filed only on 21.02.2008.  It is submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation and even otherwise the manual which binds the conduct of the bank, entitles the bank to destroy all the records which is more than eight years old.  It is submitted that since the respondent did not seek any information about the transaction for so long and closed her savings bank account in 1989, there was no occasion for the bank to preserve the details of the said saving account.  It is argued that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank and, therefore, the

-5-

impugned order is liable to be set aside which is based on conjectures and surmises and also it is apparent that the State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction.

7.      I have given thoughtful consideration.  I am satisfied that the petitioner bank has acted as per the banking norms and the relevant papers are not available with them for supply not because they lack in their services but only because the said papers were destroyed under the instructions incorporated in the Banking Manual.  No explanation has been given by the Respondent as to why she did not seek such details of her account at the time when she requested for the closure of her account and also for adjustment of the dues in the overdraft facility available to her husband against the FDs and if not immediately within a reasonable time.  No explanation has come as to why she remained sleeping over this matter till she wrote her letter in 1993.  Even thereafter she did not raise any dispute before the forum and kept quiet.  The State Commission’s order is based on the facts which are contrary to the documents proved on record and on surmises and is not a reasoned order.  I therefore, set aside the

-6-

impugned order and affirm the order of the District Forum.  The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms.