DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

==========

Keshav Dev Nagpal s/o Sh.H.R. Nagpal, H. No.1046/18-C, Chandigarh.

                                                ---Complainant.

Versus

The State Bank of India (through the Chief Manager, Sector 22 Branch), Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:          SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                      PRESIDING MEMBER

                        SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU           MEMBER

Argued by:     Ms. Baljeet Kaur Bhullar, Counsel for Complainant along with Complainant.

                                Sh. Aashish Gupta, Counsel for Opposite Party.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.                              Setting aside the order dated 26.11.2012, passed by this Forum, the Hon’ble State Commission, vide its order dated 01.04.2013, remanded the case back to this Forum “with a direction to afford the Opposite Party an opportunity of filing the written version and leading evidence by way of affidavit (s) and thereafter decide the complaint afresh on merits.

2.                              In brief, the case of the complainant is that in the last week of June 2011 he gave three Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) to the dealing hand of the opposite party for renewal.  However, surprisingly the said dealing hand returned one of the FDRs (No.TD CS/008/0781292 dated 8.2.2007) of Rs.1,00,000/- due on 8.2.2010, after crossing the same, saying that the same was not issued to the complainant as per record of the opposite party (Annexure A).  The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the Chief Manager of the opposite party/Bank vide application dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure B).  The complainant through another application dated 17.10.2011 (Annexure D) under the RTI Act also requested the opposite party to inform him about the status of his FDR.   In response to the same,  he received reply dated 25.11.2011 (Annexure F) informing him that though the STDR No.30123903534 was opened in the system on 8.2.2007 but due to technical reasons the second step of the STDR i.e. funding could not be completed.  According to the opposite party, due to mistake of the dealing official, the STDR was issued without funding.

                        The Complainant accordingly appealed before the CPIO & RM’s (Annexure H) so that no loss would be suffered by him, stating therein that his complaint was not being redressed by the Opposite Party and investigation was needed in the matter.

                        Annexure J has been placed on record by the Complainant which is the order of the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act in Appeal No. 259. It has been held that the bank has already provided the information to the Complainant and no further directions are considered desirable. The appeal had been rejected. The Complainant has also placed on record other annexures besides his medical certificates to substantiate his claim and grievance.

                        In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the following reliefs: -

“(i)       The Hon’ble Court may please order the respondent to refund the capital amount of rupees one lakh alongwith the accruing interests of Rs.31,566/- in favour of the complainant as the respondent has admitted that the funds were available in the complainant’s account for months.

(ii)               The Hon’ble Court may also please order the respondent to pay Rs.10,000/- for causing mental harassment to me and Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the law suit.

(iii)             Any other order which the Hon’ble Court thinks proper, including the cost of the suit of the complainant.”

3.                              Opposite Party in its reply has taken the preliminary objection that the Complainant has concealed the fact that he was never aware that his FDR had remained unfunded. The amount in question was lying in his savings bank account for few months only as credit balance while knowing fully about the position of his bank account the Complainant started withdrawing the amount from his savings account. Opposite Party has pleaded that the Complainant had never apprised the Opposite Party of the omission of the debit during the intervening period from the date of request for issuing the FDR i.e. 08.02.2007 to 08.02.2010 the date of maturity. Opposite Party has stated that the amount lay in the account of the Complainant for almost 3-4 months and thereafter the balance came below Rs.1.00 lac on withdrawals by the Complainant.  Opposite Party has pleaded that once the said FDR remained unfunded and the balance from the savings account of the Complainant was not transferred to his FDR account, the Complainant does not fall within the definition of the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

                        On merits, Opposite Party has taken the same contentions as above and admitted that the Complainant had submitted an application under the RTI Act to the AGM, SBI, LHO, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 17.10.2011. In response thereto, the Complainant was informed vide reply dated 25.11.2011 that due to technical reasons the 2^nd step of the STDR i.e. funding could not be completed and his savings bank account no. 10286115681 was not debited for the issuance of STDR. Also that funds were lying in his account for few months only but later these were partly withdrawn by him. 

                        Answering Opposite Party has also submitted that the Complainant had filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman on 24.11.2012 which was replied vide letter dated 05.01.2012 while holding that there was no deficiency in banking service. Accordingly, the complaint of the Complainant was closed under clause 13(a) of Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. 

                        Opposite Party has further pleaded that as the Complainant has signed the debit voucher with the directions to debit his savings bank account no. 10286115681 and transfer the same to STDR account no. 30123903534 and the Complainant should have ensured that the balance remained in the account for which he has given/signed debit voucher with the instructions to the bank to issue FDR. In fact, rather than pointing out the discrepancy to the bank for not issuing/ funding/ debiting his account and crediting the FDR account by Rs.1.00 lac, the Complainant had started withdrawing amounts thus bringing the balance in his saving bank account below Rs.1.00 lac after 3-4 months of his instructions (copy of transfer/ debit voucher at Annexure R-3).  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.                              Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

5.                              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                              The factual position of this complaint is that the Complainant had obtained an STDR/FDR for a period of one year from the Opposite Party against money lying in his account which was to mature on 8.2.2010. Admittedly, even though the STDR/FDR has been issued but the amount was not actually debited from the account. The Complainant was aware of this discrepancy. This is also evident from Annexure-G dated 18/28.10.2011 and Annexure-F dated 25.11.2011 placed on record by the Complainant himself. As per the Annexure-F dated 25.11.2011, the funding of the STDR/FDR was not completed due to a technical snag and the saving bank account was not debited.  The STDR/FDR thus though issued remained unfunded. It is also mentioned in this letter that:-

“although funds were lying in your saving Bank account for a few months but later on these were withdrawn by you”. 

7.                              During the course of proceedings, a direction was given to the Complainant to bring a copy of the passbook/ bank statement for the period of STDR/FDR. This effort was made to find out that sufficient fund had remained in the account of the Complainant for the complete period of STDR/FDR, so that even if the amount had not been taken from the account the bank should be saddled with the interest due on the STDR/FDR.  However, the Complainant failed to provide the same.

8.                              It is clear from the records that the amount of Rs.1.00 lac for which the FDR/STDR has been issued and is in possession of the Complainant, has not been debited from the savings account of the Complainant. It is evident from the bank statement placed on record by the Opposite Party that the complete amount did not remain in the account for the complete period of STDR/FDR. This is also the observation made by CPIO & Regional Manager (Annexure – F). It would thus be unfair to pass orders for grant of payment of principal along with relevant interest due on the STDR/FDR.  The Complainant is definitely not entitled to the deposited amount of Rs.1.00 lac, as this amount has not been debited from his account. But the grievance of the Complainant for loss of interest and deficiency in service of the Opposite Party is genuine.

                        To our mind, the Complainant is entitled to interest on the STDR/FDR amount for the relevant period that the complete amount remained in the account of the Complainant from the date of issuance of STDR/FDR.

9.                              We accordingly allow the complaint, with a direction to the OP-Bank to pay interest on the STDR/FDR of Rs.1.00 lac issued to the Complainant for the period that the complete amount remained in the account of the Complainant from the date of issuance of STDR/FDR only.  As per Complainant the date of issue of STDR/FDR is 08.02.2007 and as per the statement of account (at Pg.43) the balance above Rs.1.00 lac has remained in the account till 27.06.2007, so interest from 08.02.2007 to 27.06.2007 on the STDR/FDR be paid by the Opposite Party to the Complainant. The Opposite Party shall also pay a consolidated sum of Rs.7,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and harassment caused to the Complainant in having to resort to legal recourse to get his due.

10.                         This order be complied with by the Opposite Party within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

11.                         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

20.06.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER