Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member

          This appeal is an exception to the judgement & order dtd.28.02.2011 passed by District Consumer Forum, Amravati in Consumer Complaint No. CC/10/189.

1.      On 11.10.1991 deceased Raghunath Janardan Watwe, who was grand father of complainant / respondent Tushar S Watwe had deposited an amount of Rs.3,400/- as Fix Deposit (FD) for 36 months with the o.p. / appellant – Bank. Smt Shirish Kunsawalikar, daughter of Raghunath J Watwe, was the joint holder of the said FD. Thereafter on 12.11.1994 Raghunath Watwe died and Smt Shirish Kunsawalikar died on 27.10.2001. However, the amount of FD remained with the appellant bank. After the death of Raghunath as well as his daughter Smt Shirish their Legal Representative – complainant / respondent – Tushar obtained Succession Certificate on 04.12.2008 and by application dtd.01.09.2010 claimed the amount of FD. According to the complainant, in spite of repeated demand, the amount of FD was not paid. Therefore, he filed consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, claiming the amount of FD with interest and compensation at Rs.1.00 Lac for physical & mental torture, Rs.12,000/- towards the expenses of his visits to the bank and Rs.10,000/- as cost of complaint, etc.

2.      In response to the notice, the o.p / appellant – bank appeared before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati and resisted the claim by submitting Written Version, contending, inter alia, that the amount of FD was not paid to the complainant immediately on receipt of his application as the record pertaining to the FD was not traced out, etc. It is submitted that the bank was ready & willing to pay the amount of FD to the complainant on tracing out the record, but complainant has filed the case. It is submitted to dismiss the complaint.

3.      On hearing both sides and considering all the documents on record the District Consumer Forum, Amravati allowed the claim, directing the appellant / o.p. – bank to pay amount of FD with interest to the complainant within one month and also an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings.

4.      Feeling aggrieved by the judgement and order the o.p. – bank filed this appeal.

5.      Today the matter was fixed for hearing before admission. We heard Adv. Mr P A Rajurkar for the appellant and perused the copy of impugned judgement & order, copy of complaint, notes of written argument submitted by the appellant – bank and also the copy of other documents including copy of Procedure Book, containing terms & conditions.

6.      Mr Rajurkar, Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant bank never denied to pay the amount of FD of the complainant but bank could not pay the amount as the record was not traceable. Pointing out to the banking rules from the Procedure Book, he has submitted that the bank is required to preserve the document only for 12 years and as the complainant had applied after lapse of 14 years, the record pertaining to the FD was not traced out immediately. However, pending the complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, the record was traced out and therefore, immediately; bank deposited the amount of FD with interest with the office of District Consumer Forum, Amravati. But without considering all these facts, the District Consumer Forum, Amravati awarded the compensation at Rs.8,000/- and also cost of Rs.1,000/-. It is submitted that this order, awarding such cost on public corporate body is not just and proper, etc.

7.      Further Mr Rajurkar, Advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent has not produced any record pertaining to his visits to the bank several times as alleged. The District Consumer Forum, Amravati has wrongly awarded said compensation. 

8.      Further pointing out from the copy of impugned judgement, Adv. Mr Rajurkar has contended that findings of the District Consumer Forum, Amravati are self contradictory and not at all tenable. According to him the District Consumer Forum, Amravati observed that the complainant failed to prove the details about compensation and wrongly awarded the compensation. But we find no force in the submission of Adv. Mr Rajurkar. When, undisputedly, the appellant bank could not trace out the record pertaining to FD within reasonable period after receiving the claim application of the respondent / complainant, it can not be denied that the complainant was required to visit the bank repeatedly. Further the complainant’s averments that he was mentally tortured, etc. also cannot be denied. There could not be any record pertaining to the visits of the respondent / complainant to the bank. 

9.      When the record pertaining to FD was with the bank, it was for the appellant – bank to trace out it within reasonable time after receipt of the claim application of the complainant. Therefore, though the appellant bank traced out the record of FD and the amount of FD deposited in the District Consumer Forum, Amravati, pending the complaint, the Forum has rightly awarded reasonable compensation and cost of proceeding. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal and hence, it deserves to be dismissed summarily.

iii.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.