Animesh Mandal vs Chief Manager, United Bank Of India

Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the Order dated 19-06-2015 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No.FA/1251/2013, whereby the State Commission while affirming the Order dated 19-09-2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as ‘the District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No. 32 of 2013, has dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner herein. The District Forum has dismissed the Complaint holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank.

Concisely narrated, the facts leading to the filing of the Complaint are that the Petitioner was a Central Government Civil Pensioner and he was maintaining his Pension Account with the Respondent/Opposite Party Bank. The Respondent Bank erroneously credited a sum of ₹5,10,279/- to the Petitioner’s Pension Account on 31.03.2009 as excess amount of gratuity which was debited same day on information by the Complainant.  However, the said amount was again credited to the Petitioner’s Account on 02-04-2009 by the Respondent Bank. Subsequently, on 13.12.2011, after detecting its mistake, the Respondent Bank debited the Pension Account of the Petitioner with an amount of ₹6,75,172.35/- which included interest of ₹1,64,893.35/- accrued on the FDR of ₹5,00,000/- made out of the wrongly credited amount of gratuity. On a request made by the Petitioner to the Respondent Bank as to explain the rate of interest applied on recovery of the excess amount erroneously credited to his Account and the relevant Provision of Law under which the recovery had been made, the Respondent Bank replied that the Gratuity amount of ₹5,10,279/- was erroneously credited to his account out of which he obtained a Term Deposit of ₹5,00,000/- and, therefore, the amount of ₹5,10,279/- has been recovered by the Respondent Bank from the proceeds of the said Term Deposit including interest which is not payable to him. The Petitioner alleging that the amount of ₹5,10,279/- was erroneously credited to his account by the Respondent and, therefore, interest cannot be charged on that amount, requested the Respondent Bank to rectify its mistake and to refund the interest amount charged on the excess gratuity amount. However, the Respondent Bank did not accede to the said request.

Feeling aggrieved, Petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum praying direction to the Respondent Bank to make payment of ₹1,64,893.35/- with interest, which was wrongly debited by the Respondent Bank from the Petitioner’s Savings Account and to pay compensation of ₹2,00,000/-.

The Respondent Bank resisted the Complaint on the ground that the Petitioner never informed them in writing or orally regarding excess payment of Gratuity wrongly credited in his Pension Account and, being fully aware, he invested the said amount in the FDR of ₹5,00,000/-. Thus, the interest accrued on the excess Gratuity Amount cannot be claimed by the Petitioner, being the Government money. It was further contended that on a request made by the Respondent Bank to the Petitioner to deposit the excess amount of Gratuity with interest, the Petitioner had informed them to collect the same from the Fixed Deposit certificate with interest. Accordingly, the Respondent-bank has only recovered the amount of ₹6,75,177/- which included the principal amount of ₹5,10,279/- as well as the interest thereon from the Petitioner and had refunded the entire amount to the Government. The Respondent Bank had not enjoyed the interest accrued on the said gratuity amount. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

The District Forum, after perusing the pleadings and documents placed on record, came to the conclusion that the Respondent Bank was justified to deduct or to debit the excess amount of gratuity wrongly paid to the Petitioner along with interest thereupon and rightly deposited the amount in Government Account as per the statutory provisions. Therefore, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing as under:-

“  After going through the pleadings of both the parties we find that the question is as to whether the complainant is entitled to get interest of Rs.1,64,893.3/- which was accrued on the excess gratuity amount of Rs.5,10,279/- paid to him erroneously by the  OP Bank.

After going through the pleadings and documents submitted by the both the parties we find that the complainant has not produced any document to prove that he ever informed to the Bank regarding excess payment of gratuity amount to his pension A/c.

It is an admitted fact the Rs.5,10,279/- has been credited to the SB A/C of the Complainant erroneously by the Bank as excess gratuity. Accordingly, we find that the O.P. Bank has the authority to deduct or to debit the said amount form the account of the Complainant with interest. In this case, the OP did the said act and deposited the said excess gratuity amount along with interest to the Govt. as per statute.

In the above circumstances, we find that this complainant is not entitled to get any interest on the said excess gratuity amount and is not also entitled to get any relief as prayed for in this case.

Accordingly, this case is not maintainable and should be dismissed.”

Dis-satisfied with the Order passed by the District Forum, the Petitioner Complainant preferred First Appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed by it, vide order dated 19.06.2015 confirming the Order passed by the District Forum and observing as under:-

“  We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submission and perused the materials on records.

Materials on records reveal that there is no dispute about the erroneous credit of excess amount of gratuity of Rs. 5,10,279/-. There is also no dispute that the Appellant/Complainant invested the said excess amount of gratuity, which he was not legally entitled to, in Term Deposit in question and the Appellant/Complainant did not refund the excess amount of gratuity which was not due to him, unless and until the Respondent/OP-Bank requested him to refund the same to the Respondent/OP-Bank.  It is also revealed from the materials on records that the Respondent/OP-Bank did not appropriate the interest accrued on the Term Deposit in question, but refunded the same along with excess credit amount of gratuity to the Government Account concerned.

On the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that on the principle of natural justice and equity the Appellant/Complainant is not entitled to the interest accrued on the amount of gratuity, which was not justly due to the Appellant/ Complainant.  Benefits, which accrued from what is not due to a person, as is the case of undue payment of gratuity on hand, should also not be due to the said person.  Or else, unjust enrichment will accrue.

In view of the foregoing discussion we are unable to interfere with the conclusion of the Ld. District Forum in the impugned judgment and order, which appears to have been passed on correct appreciation of the fact of the case.

In the result, the Appeal fails.  The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.  No order as to costs.

Hence, the present Revision Petition by the Petitioner/Complainant.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the written submissions filed by the Petitioner/Complainant.

The backbone of the contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that on 31.03.2009 the Respondent Bank erroneously credited a sum of ₹5,10,279/- as an excess gratuity in his Pension Account maintained with them and the said amount was debited on the same very date on orally pointing out the mistake of the Bank by the Petitioner. But still, the Bank had again credited the same amount in his Pension Account on 02.04.2009. The said fact was brought to the knowledge of the Bank but they did not choose to take any action on the same. It is further vigorously submitted by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the source/fund of the FDR in question was not the amount which was erroneously credited to the Petitioner’s Pension Account as the date of commencement of the FDR was much prior to the credit of the excess gratuity amount. Hence, the Respondent Bank was not at all justified in reversing the entry of the amount of ₹1,64,893.35 accrued as interest on the FDR of ₹5,10,279/-  which was made by the Petitioner from his own money and not from the payment of excess gratuity amount. He further fervidly urged that the Respondent Bank has an authority to adjust any excess amount paid to the Complainant but has no right under any statute or any Rules and Regulation having the statutory force which provides them a right to deduct the interest which has been solely accrued on fixed deposit entirely funded by the Petitioner out of his own money and as such the Respondent Bank is liable to refund the amount of ₹1,64,839.35 with interest.

Per contra, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Bank has supported the well-reasoned orders passed by the Fora below and the finding of facts returned by them after due appreciation of the material as well as evidence available on record.

Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in any of the afore-mentioned submissions of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Complainant. With regard to the entry of ₹5,10,279/-  in the Petitioner’s Pension Account by the Respondent Bank on 02.04.2009, there is no dispute between the parties that the said amount was erroneously credited in the Petitioner’s Pension Account. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had informed the Respondent Bank about the said erroneous entry in his Pension Account but no action was taken by the Respondent Bank.  However, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has failed to lead any cogent documentary evidence in support of the said contention. Subsequently, on detecting its mistake, the Respondent Bank, vide letter dated 03.07.2011 followed by another letter dated 14.11.2011, requested the Petitioner to refund the excess amount of gratuity with interest. The Petitioner/Complainant offered the FDR in question to the Respondent Bank for adjustment of the excess amount. Hence, there is no denial by either of the parties with regard to payment of excess amount of ₹5,10,279/- as gratuity to the Petitioner by the Respondent Bank and in terms of the Central Government Pension Rules, the Respondent Bank is entitled to recover the excess amount from the Petitioner.

Now, the only question which remains for our consideration is as to whether the Respondent Bank was entitled to get interest of ₹1,64,893.35 which was accrued on the FDR made out of the excess gratuity amount by the Petitioner.

From a bare perusal of the Pass Book placed on record by the Petitioner and the details of the Bank Transactions available on file for the period from 06.01.2009 to 13.12.2011 it would reveal that an excess amount of gratuity of ₹5,10,279/- was erroneously credited in the Pension’s Account of the Petitioner on 31.03.2009.  As stated by the Petitioner, in the Complaint, the said amount was debited in his Account on the same very date on his oral intimation to the Respondent Bank. Hence, it is crystal clear that the Petitioner was well aware about the fact that the amount of ₹5,10,279/-  was not related to him by in any manner. When the amount of ₹5,10,279/- was again erroneously credited in his Pension Account by the Respondent Bank on 02.04.2009, the Petitioner was duty bound to informed the Respondent Bank about the said transaction as the money related to the Government. However, the Petitioner not only kept silence till it was realized by the Bank that the excess payment of gratuity was made to the Petitioner but also invested the amount in a Term Deposit of ₹5,00,000/- on 14.05.2009.  The plea taken by the Petitioner that since the date of commencement of the FDR in question was prior to the erroneous entry of excess amount of gratuity, the Respondent Bank was not entitled to claim the interest accrued on the FDR, does not hold any water. A perusal of the FDR would reveal that the commencement date of the FDR was 10.01.2009 which was to mature on 10.12.2011. But in fact this was not the FDR which was made out of the excess amount of gratuity. In its letter dated 03.05.2013, the Petitioner had admitted that “on examination of relevant accounts maintained at your end, it will be crystal clear that the date of issue of aforesaid Term Deposit Certificate was 10.01.2009 (Source: Joint S/B A/C No. 0193010-186759) whereas the said gratuity amount was credited in my SB A/C No.0193012986731 on a later date i.e. 02.04.2009.”.  Therefore, it is manifestly clear that the source of FDR of ₹5,00,000/- was not the erroneous credit entry of excess gratuity amount. But, the Petitioner has failed to produce any cogent evidence as to what was the source of the FDR which was made by him on 14.05.2009 from the account in which the excess gratuity amount was paid. The said FDR has not been produced on record by the Petitioner and as such an adverse inference can be drawn in this regard. Thus, the said contention is also negated. Moreover, the amount of interest of ₹1,64,893.35 has not been kept with it by the Respondent Bank and the said amount has been deposited with the concerned Government Account as the excess amount of Gratuity was belonging to the Government Money.

For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the concurrent finding rendered by the Fora below to the effect that the Respondent Bank was well within its right to recover the amount of excess gratuity as well as the interest accrued on the FDR since the amount of excess Gratuity was the Government Money and the Petitioner has no right to claim the interest, we do not find any material irregularity and jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the Fora below except to the extent that there was a glare deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank in again crediting the amount of excess Gratuity in the Pension Account of Petitioner on 02.04.2009. The Respondent Bank had erroneously credited a sum of ₹5,10,279/-  in the Pension Account of the Petitioner on 31.03.2009 and the same was debited on the said date on intimation by the Petitioner. But the said amount was further credited on 02.04.2009 by the Respondent Bank to the said Pension A/c of the Petitioner for which the Petitioner is entitled for some compensation. Therefore, we feel that a lump-sum compensation of ₹60,000/- for admitted deficiency in service by the Respondent Bank would meet the ends of justice.

Consequently, the Revision Petition is partly allowed with a direction to the Respondent Bank to pay a lump-sum compensation of ₹60,000/- to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of passing this order.  No orders as to costs.