Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/54/2019

Banke Bihari Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Manager, Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Anjani Kumari

25 Jun 2022

ORDER

District Consumer Commission, Bokaro.

Case No. 54/2019

  Date of Filing-12-03-2019

 Date of Order-25-06-2022

Banke Bihari Singh S/o Late Surya Narayan Singh

R/o Qr.No. 166, Sector-3/B, Bokaro Stee City.

                                      Vr.

1.The Chief Manager, Bank of India,

Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City,

District- Bokaro Jharkhand, Pin 827004

2. The Zonal Manager, Bank of India,

 Zonal Office, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City,

 District- Bokaro Jharkhand, Pin 827004

Present:-

          Shri Jai Prakash Narayan Pandey, President

           Shri Bhawani Prasad Lal Das, Member

          Smt. Baby Kumari, Member

                                                -Order-

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. for payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- with interest @ 14% per annum  since August 1999   and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for various type of harassment and also to pay Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant.
2. Complainant’s case in brief is that complainant has deposited Rs. 1,00,000/-  each on 13.08.1999, 17.08.1999 and 24.08.1999 respectively vide cheque No. 14959, 14960 & 391301 respectively (total Rs. 3,00,000/-) for issuance of DBD/FDR but those fixed deposit receipts are not traceable hence bank has not paid the maturity amount rather complainant was directed to furnish indemnity letter for issue of duplicate term deposit receipt, accordingly on 16.04.2018 indemnity bond was executed. Further case is that several letters have been issued on 27.11.2017, 05.01.2018, 06.02.2018 and 15.06.2018 but no reply was received. Further case is that complaint was lodged with Banking Ombudsman which was replied to file case before competent Court. Further case is that still complainant is maintaining account in the Bank of India, Sector-4, Bokaro Steel City Branch vide A/c No. 13226 Now 480010100013226. Therefore, this case has been filed with above prayer.
3.  W.S. has been filed by the O.Ps. in which they have admitted the fact related to maintenance of above mentioned account of the complainant in their  Bank and they have also admitted the fact regarding debit of Rs. 1,00,00/- on three occasions on the basis of three cheques issued by the complainant. Further reply is that these O.Ps. having no knowledge about issuance of FDR/DBD against said amount because as per Banking law after 10 years of the transaction vouchers etc. are being destroyed. Further reply is that said matter was raised by the complainant before these O.Ps. after lapse of more than 17 years period, hence O.Ps. are unable to pay the claim amount and provide duplicate FDR/DBD. Further reply is that the complainant failed to provide Xerox copy or serial number of said FDR/DBD if any issued in his favour nor there was any request from the complainant for renewal of said FDR/DBD for further period, otherwise bank would have transferred the maturity amount in the account of the complainant on surrender of original receipt in the bank. All the allegations of the complaint petition have been denied and it is replied that there is no cause of action for the case.
4.  On the basis of pleadings following points are to be decided by this Commission:-

1. Whether there is cause of action for the case ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed?

5.      On behalf of the complainant photo copy of the passbook related to SB Account No. 13226 has been filed to show that on 13.08.1999, 17.08.1999 and 24.08.1999 respectively Rs. 1,00,000/- each date has been withdrawn on the basis of cheques issued by the complainant. Other documents are photo copy of indemnity bond dt. 16.04.2018, photo copy of application dt. 03.04.2018 written to the Officer In-charge of the Sector-4 P.S., photo copy of applications dt. 27.11.2017,05.01.2018, 06.02.2018, 25.06.2018 and 13.12.2018 written by the complainant to bank authority. Other documents are photo copy of complaint form written to Banking Ombudsman on 08.09.2018, photo copy of acknowledgment of said complaint and photo copy of response on that very  complaint have been filed.

 6.     On the other hand no any paper has been filed by the complainant.

7.      On careful perusal of the photo copy of the documents submitted by the complainant it appears that except photo copy of the passbook of savings bank account there is no any chit of paper to show that complainant has invested Rs. 3,00,000/- for issuance of  DBD/FDR on three different dates i.e. on 13.08.1999, 17.08.1999 and 24.08.1999. Complainant is unable to produce any other document such as counter foil of deposit slip, copy of DBD/FDR, number or other details of DBD/FDR. It is very much surprising that for the first time on 27.11.2017 complainant has made correspondence with Bank officials with such assertion. Prior to 27.11.2017 complainant was sleeping for more than 18 years and he never took any effort for the same. The photo copy of the information given to the Police shows that on 23.11.2017 complainant had gone to City Centre, Sector-4 for getting photo copies of those FDR but during it FDRs were fallen somewhere which were not traced out. Before the Banking authority he has given intimation that either he has not received those FDR from the bank or they have been misplaced. On this score also there is no consistency in the statement of the complainant rather it is contradictory to each other. It is important to note here that for the sake of argument if it is taken into consideration that FDR was issued then it is not possible that said FDR will be issued for the period of 20 years or more. It is not on record that complainant has made any complain earlier that he has not been provided any FDR/DBD. In the complaint petition or in any other paper no any description of those FDR/DBD has been provided by the complainant. In this way it is very much clear that complainant has failed to prove the case for grant of prayer made in the complaint petition.

8.      In light of above discussion we are of the view that this case is hopelessly time barred and it has been filed after more than 20 years from the debit of the amount from the savings bank account of the complainant. Complainant is not having any evidence regarding issuance of FDR/DBD hence there is no cause of action for the case. Hence both the points are being decided against the complainant.

 9.     Accordingly this case is being dismissed and parties shall bear their own costs.