Per Mrs.Usha S. Thakare – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
1. This is an application filed by the Complainant – Ashish Arun Kejriwal S/o Arun Kejriwal, for condonation of delay. Late Arun Kejriwal was Proprietor of M/s.Hindustan Hosiery Mills. He died on 15.03.2006. Said Mill was having Current Account with Opponent No.1 Bank’s Cotton Exchange Branch. According to Complainant, after sad demise of Arun Kejriwal, there was no one to look after the business affairs of M/s.Hindustan Hosiery Mills. Recently in February, 2011 while going through the business record of deceased Arun Kejriwal, the Complainant came to know about correspondence between the Muzaffarpur Branch of the Opponent No.1 and the deceased. The Complainant came across the ‘LTDR” and he found that his father had invested an amount of `60,000/- in Fix Term Deposit in the year 1969 with Muzaffarpur Branch of Opponent No.1. He made several enquiries with the Opponent. He realized that amount of deposit was adjusted without knowledge of late father and interest accrued thereon against the same loan account on 29.12.2004. The Opponent failed to furnish the details. On perusal of letter dated 27.10.2003 it is evident that gross errors are committed by the Opponents while calculating overdue interest. He made correspondence with the Opponent but of no use. The Opponent No.1 repudiated the claim for payment of maturity amount. Said amount was illegally deposited by Opponent No.3. Closure of “LTDR” against loan amount was without informing his late father and without his consent. The Opponents have misled the Complainant by giving vague, baseless answers and caused undue hardship, mental stress and agony to the Complainant. Therefore, he wants to file complaint.
2. Since there is delay in filing the complaint, the Complainant has filed delay condonation application. He submits that he was not aware of the existence of the said investment of his father in fixed deposit. When he came to know about the said deposit, he made enquiry with the Opponent. The Opponent has repudiated the said claim and did not give satisfactory explanation about the adjustment of the deposits. On these grounds, the Applicant/Complainant requested for condonation of delay of seven years in filing the complaint.
3. The Opponents have opposed the application by filing written reply. Mr.R.K. Pahuja, the Chief Manager of Central Bank of India (Opponent No.1) who is conversant with the facts opposed the application and submitted that the Complainant who is legal heir of late Arun Kejriwal suppressed the material facts. He made false and baseless allegations with malafide intentions. The application is filed to harass the Opponent Bank, which is liable to be rejected. The Bank had calculated interest on the said LTDR as per the banking rules. The original LTDR holder had no grievance in respect thereof. During his life time he never bothered to challenge the same, therefore, the Complainant has no locus standi to challenge the same. There was lien of Bank on said LTDR and the proceeds of LTDR were adjusted in the loan account of the original LTDR holder on 21.02.2005 during his life time with his knowledge in part satisfaction of decree passed by DRT in suit bearing No.DRT O.A.No.887 of 2000 for the recovery of the outstanding dues of sum of Rs.199.93 lac wherein said LTDR holder Arun Kejriwal was the principal borrower. Original LTDR holder was very much aware about the said LTDR proceedings. He did not bother to challenge the adjustment of the same or against the alleged so called errors committed by the Opponent Bank in calculating interest on said LTDR during his life time. The LTDR was issued by Central Bank of India, Muzaffarpur Branch, U.P., being the Opponent No.4 in the above complaint in 1969. It was renewed from time to time on the request of original LTDR holder. It was matured on 01.01.2004 and the claim is undoubtedly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Hence submitted that the application is liable to be rejected.
4. Heard Ms.Sonali Desai, Advocate for the Applicant/Complainant and Mr.V.K. Nair, Advocate for the Non-applicants/Opponents.
5. On perusal of the record and documents filed on record it appears that late Arun Kumar Kejriwal had taken loan from the Bank. There was lien on LTDR. Original LTDR holder, namely Arun Kumar Kejriwal, never opposed the adjustment of matured amount and interest thereon in loan account. He himself participated in a proceeding before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Mumbai in R.P. No.280/2003. After his demise his legal heirs participated in proceeding before D.R.T. at Mumbai. The Applicant/Complainant never raised objection for adjustment of amount of L.T.D.R. towards loan before D.R.T. in proceedings. Reason raised by the Applicant for condonation of delay is not well founded. It is hard to believe that the present Applicant/Complainant did not have knowledge of said LTDR. The Applicant/Complainant failed to make sufficient reason for condonation of delay. Hence the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Misc.Application for condonation of delay stands dismissed.
(ii) Consequently Complaint No.CC/12/21 does not survive for consideration.
(iii) No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 1st August, 2013.
