Haryana

Ambala

CC/380/2018

Bhavya Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

01 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 380 of 2019.

                                                          Date of Institution           :   15.11.2018.

                                                          Date of decision    :   01.01.2020.

 

Bhavya Verma aged 24 years son of late Smt. Rajni, resident of House No.15/2090-A/3, Kaziwara, Ambala City.  

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

The Allahabad Bank, Near T.B. Hospital, Ambala City through its Chief Manager.

 

           ..…..Opposite Party.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                            

Present:       Shri Ram Sarup, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri S.K. Mehta, Advocate, counsel for OP.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay Rs.17,860/-, i.e the maturity amount of FDR alongwith prevailing rate of interest from 01.06.2000 till the date of its realization to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony & physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper.

 

Brief facts of the case are that OP is having its branch office at Ambala City, providing Banking and Internet services to the customers. The mother of the complainant Smt. Rajni, when she was alive had also availed services of the bank and invested a sum of Rs.17,000/- in the term deposit scheme in the year 1999. Smt. Rajni unfortunately expired on 25.10.2007 and complainant being legal heir is covered under Section 2(b)(v) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is governed by Hindu Law and being only son of Smt. Rajni has inherited her debts and securities. Late Smt. Rajni, mother of the complainant, had deposited Rs.17000/- with the OP, vide receipt No.TD-B 785412/924 for a period of 91-days commencing from 2.9.1999 to 1.12.1999 having maturity value of Rs.17860/- . She got renewed this F.D. renewed for another 91 days from 01.12.1999 to 31.03.2000 with maturity value of Rs.17,555/-. She further got this FD renewed for the period from 01.03.2000 to 01.06.2000, with maturity value of Rs.17,860/-. His mother had obtained a decree of divorce on 05.11.1999 from the Hon’ble Court of District Judge, Ambala. Mother of the complainant expired on 25.10.2007, leaving behind her sole heir. Complainant was born in the year 1994 and attained age of majority in the year 2012. Complainant found FD papers of his mother, kept in the house and submitted the same alongwith other requisite documents to the dealing hand of OP, for settlement of claim.  In the month of August, 2012 complainant approached the bank (OP) to liquidate the FD but bank was not inclined to pay the amount and unnecessarily lingered on the matter on the one pretext or the other. Complainant visited the bank several times and also sent a reminder on 15.10.2012, but it never paid any heed. Later on, bank claimed that FD stood paid but refused to furnish details. The complainant gave an application dated 10.09.2012 to Shri N.Tatachari, Chief Manager of OP Personnel Administration Department, Head Office, Kolkata seeking information about the payment of fixed deposit in question, which was forwarded vide reference memo No. Admn/5/TD.5193 dated 23.11.2012 to the CPIO Allahabad Bank, Head Office, Kolkata for doing the needful in the matter Concerned CPIO and Assistant General Manager (Law) replied to complainant vide reference No.HO/RTI/CPIO/588, dated 21.12.2012 stating that in the absence of any definite records, it appears that the original FDR might have misplaced and payment was made to the FDR holder by crediting the amount of Rs.18,901/- on 03.04.2001 in her SB A/c No.4575. The deceased claim of SB A/c was settled on 27.03.2009. However, no such claim was made by the claimant on that date about the said FDR. The complainant is still in possession of original FD of his deceased mother. Feeling dis-satisfied with the above reply of CPIO, the complainant had preferred an appeal on 01.01.2013, before the First Appellate Authority under the Act of 2005, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata. The appellate authority in its reference No.HO/RTI/FAA/416 dated 14.01.2013 addressed to complainant had conveyed that the CPIO provided the available information to complainant, further stating that FDR was credited in the SB Account of payee. Complainant again approached the RTI Officer, Allahabad Bank, Kolkata on 10.03.2016, for seeking full information i.e. who took this FD payment and also give him a statement of the account No.4575 for the period from January, 2001 to July, 2001 within 15 days. Vide reference No.HO/RTI/CPIO/18 dated 13.04.2016, the OP replied that old record of the branch was destroyed in the flood as such details of FDR and statement of SB account No.4575 for the period from January 2001 to July 2001 is not traceable. Further details of mentioned FDR is not available even in call over report. As per the said report account purported to have been settled in the year 2009, whereas Smt. Rajni expired on 2007. Bank claims that payment has been made in saving bank account and also that signature of complainant and payee differs. Thus, from this it appears that some bank official might have misappropriated the amount to which bank wants to hide. As original FDR is with the complainant then how the FDR payment could be made. Complainant wrote letters dated 05.06.2017, 10.07.2017, 12.07.2017 to the OP and a letter dated 27.07.2017 to the Zonal Office, Allahabd Bank, Sector-17B, Chandigarh, with copy to OP and Chairman cum Managing Director, Allahabd Bank, Kolkata, but did not receive any reply. Even he had not received any reply to the legal notice dated 08.10.2018 served upon to the OP By not paying the maturity amount of the FDR in question to the complainant, the OP has committed deficiency in service.  Hence, the present complaint.  

2.                Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding not coming to this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands, estopped by her own act and conduct. On merits, it is stated that the Guardian of the complainant took the payment of the said F.D.R. The OP had made the payment to the Guardian of the complainant. Further stated that the old record of the Branch was destroyed in the flood. Rest of the allegations were denied and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-19 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP tendered affidavit of Shri Ghansham Kumar, Chief Manager, Allahabad Bank, Jagadhri Gate Branch, Ambala City as Annexure OPA alongwith the documents Annexure OP1 to Annexure OP13 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant argued that in the year 1999, the deceased mother of the complainant had invested Rs.17,000/- with the OP, in the shape of FDR,  which got matured on 01.06.2000 with maturity value of Rs.17,860/-. She expired on 25.10.2007 and complainant being her only legal heir, after attaining the age of majority, in the year 2012, approached the OP for encashment of the said FDR, which was lying in his house.  But the bank official refused to pay him the maturity amount, on the ground that the said FDR had already been encashed and the amount had already been paid. No proper information was provided by the OP, as to whom the maturity amount was paid. Thereafter, when he sought information under RTI Act, about the said FDR, then OP informed that the said FDR was got encahsed on 03.04.2001, it also informed that old record of the branch was destroyed in the flood as such details of FDR and statement of SB account No.4575 (New account No.20155220135) for the period from January 2001 to July 2001 was not traceable. The details of the FDR in question, is not available even in call over report. Since, the original FDR is in the possession of the complainant; therefore, it appears that some bank official had misappropriated the amount of the said FDR, and the bank being the employer is thus liable to pay the maturity amount to the complainant alongwith interest. While saying so, he has placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in case of Allahabad Bank Versus Shiv Swarup Shrivastrav I (2007) CPJ 221 (NC), wherein it has been held that misappropriation of sum by bank employee, within scope or course of employment, the OP bank, as employer, vicariously liable for loss caused to customer through misdemeanour or negligence of employee. He further argued that the OP has still to pay the maturity amount of the FDR in question, therefore, complainant got the recurring cause of action to prefer a complaint seeking direction to refund the amount with interest. In support of this contention the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgement passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of Anand Prabhakar Vs. T.N. Ramachandra Shetty 2013(1) CLT 575, wherein it has been held that “Since the respondent fails to pay the amount covered under the FDR with interest, after exhausting the oral requests and demands, respondent got issued the legal notice to the appellant but, it failed to answer the same. Therefore, the respondent got the recurring cause of action to prefer a complaint seeking direction to refund the amount with interest.”

                   On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP has argued that the FDR in question had already been got encashed by the guardian of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get the maturity amount of the said FDR. The old record of the branch was destroyed in flood. He prayed that the present complaint may be dismissed with costs.

6.                During the course of arguments, the complainant had shown the original FDR, which was not disputed by the learned counsel for the OP/bank. In these circumstances, it is held that when the original FDR is in the custody of the complainant then question of encashment thereof, does not arise at all. As far as the argument to the effect that OP had paid the maturity amount of the FDR in question, to the holder is without any evidence and has no value in the eyes of law. It is well-settled law that a man may lie but documents cannot. Since, the OP has failed to prove that it had paid the maturity amount of the FDR in question, therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that the complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount of the said FDR alongwith interest. Even, we find force in this contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant got the recurring cause of action to file a complaint against the OP to get the maturity amount of the FDR in question because no cogent evidence has been produced by the bank/OP to prove that it had paid the maturity amount of the FDR in question.

7.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OP in the following manner:-

(i) To pay Rs. 17,860/- i.e maturity amount of the FDR in question      alongwith interest @ 7% per annum w.e.f 01.06.2000 i.e the date       of maturity till its realisation.

(ii) To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation & costs.

 

The OP is further directed to comply with the order within the period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on:01.01.2020

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President