AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition, under Section 58 (1) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Complainant against the order dated 18.03.2020 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan Circuit Bench, Udaipur (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.297 of 2013 of the Petitioner which was filed against the order dated 30.10.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-Chittorgarh, Rajasthan (for short "the District Forum") in his Complaint No.368 of 2012. The Complaint was dismissed by the District Forum. The State Commission vide the impugned order, while dismissing the Appeal, imposed cost of 10,000/-.
The Petitioner had filed the Complaint before the District Forum claiming deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent/Opposite Party whereby they had refused to encash the FD which, the Petitioner alleged, had been opened by him by depositing a cash amount of 47,000/- but the same had not been encashed by the Opposite Party while another FD for the same amount which was opened on 04.12.2006 had been encashed.
The plea of the Opposite Party/Respondent had been that the Complainant had Saving Bank Account No.51079803043. It was stated that on 03.12.2006, the Complainant did not deposit the amount of 47,000/- as the Bank remained closed. It was submitted that the Complainant only deposited certain cash amount on 04.12.2006 and thereafter, converted an amount of 47,000/- in a Fixed Deposit and that they are ready to credit the maturity amount in the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant. It is denied by the Opposite Party that the Complainant had opened any other Fixed Deposit.
Parties led their evidences. After hearing the parties and perusing the relevant record, the District Forum has observed thus:
"5. Dispute between the Complainant and defendants is that two Fixed Deposit Receipts of 47,000/- each were issued on 03.12.2006/04.12.2006 or only one Receipt was issued which was renewed on 14.12.2006 with enhanced rate of interest of 8.5 percent. In fact Complainant has stated that on the above-said date two Fixed Deposit Receipts were prepared and when these were presented at the defendant Bank for payment, he was told that payment of only one receipt can be made with its maturity amount of 71,571/-. According to the defendant Bank Complainant had assured the then Branch Manager Sh. R.K. Modi at the time of renewal that old Fixed Deposit Receipt will be submitted at the Bank but the same was not produced and on the basis of same he is claiming the amount on maturity. According to the defendant Bank, on 14.12.2006 a Circular was received at the Bank from Headquarter, according to which the rate of interest on fixed deposit was increased from 8 percent to 8.50 percent and when this information was given, Complainant requested for the renewal of Fixed Deposit Receipt issued on 04.12.2006 and in accordance with this Fixed Deposit Receipt 025656 was renewed on 14.12.2006 and Receipt No. 025668 was issued.
Undoubtedly a mistake has been committed by the Bank and when Receipt No. 025668 was issued, date of its issuance was mentioned as 03.12.2006 with date of maturity as 03.12.2011. Now the question arises that this mistake was bonafide or intentional? In the additional affidavit filed before this Forum by the Complainant it has been mentioned that on 04.12.2006 he took 64,500/- at the Bank on which the then Manager Modi issued one Receipt dated 03.12.2006 with interest at the rate of 8.5 percent and another at the interest at the rate of 8.50 percent, on which Complainant gave his consent. We are unable to understand that when two Fixed Deposit Receipts were issued on 04.12.2006 then how interest at the rate of 8 percent is payable on one and at the rate of 8.5 percent on another. It is also difficult to understand that how a Branch Manager of the Bank can assure the issuance of Fixed Deposit Receipt on Public holiday. In case two Fixed Deposit Receipts were issued at the same time, difference of 12 digits in these Receipts is also not possible in any manner. Date of 04.12.2006 has been mentioned on Receipt No. 025656 and date of 03.12.2006 has been mentioned on the Receipt No. 025668 issued after 12 digits. According to our opinion both the Fixed Deposit Receipts, copies of which have been filed before this Forum, were not issued together on the same date i.e. 04.12.2006.
Complainant has total 06 Fixed Deposits with defendant No. 3 Bank. It is clear that he was in close contact with the then Manager of the Bank. Complainant in his additional affidavit clearly refused from the renewal of earlier Fixed Deposit Receipt 025656 on 14.12.2006 but as per the details of Account No. 61913827454 and Account No. 61014406626 transaction was made in both the above-said accounts on 14.12.2006. On 14.12.2006 itself the amount of 47,000/- credited in the Account No. ......454 on 04.12.2006 was withdrawn on 14.12.2006 and on the same date i.e. 14.12.2006 the above-said amount was deposited in the account No....... 626 and in the said entry there is clear mention of issuing new STDR for 47,000/-. Therefore in our opinion in fact single Fixed Deposit Receipt No.025656 was prepared on 04.12.2006 bearing Account No. 61013827454 and it was prepared for interest at the rate of
8 percent per annum. The said Fixed Deposit Receipt was renewed on 14.12.2006 and Receipt No. 025668 was issued on the above-said date bearing Account No. 61014406626. At the time of renewal, as per our opinion, due to bonafide mistake the date of 03.12.2006 was written however the date of 04.12.2006 should have been written and the date of maturity should have been written as 04.12.2011 in place of 03.12.2011. Normally, accounts related mistakes in the Banks do not occur, but in the present case the mentioning of date of 03.12.2006 as the date of issue, is complexly bonafide in our opinion because if it was not bonafide the date of public holiday would have not been mentioned.
In view of the facts of the case, this part of the defendant Bank seems more reliable that when defendant Bank informed regarding circular received from head office and grant of interest at the rate of 8.50 percent per annum in place of 8 percent per annum on the fixed deposit, Complainant agreed for the renewal of his previous fixed deposit receipt and accordingly the previous deposit receipt was renewed on 14.12.2006 with interest at the rate of 8.50 percent per annum and receipt No.025668 was issued.
On the basis of above discussion, we reach on the conclusion that Complainant is entitled to get the maturity amount of only one fixed deposit receipt No. 025668 and complaint of the Complainant cannot be allowed and defendants cannot be directed to pay the amount for both the Receipts. In fact the Receipt No. 025668 is the renewed Fixed Deposit Receipt of 025656.
This order was impugned by the Petitioner before the State Commission. The State Commission after re-assessing the entire evidences on record and duly re-appreciating it, and after hearing the arguments of the parties, dismissed the Appeal of the Petitioner and has held as under:
Learned District Forum, after considering upon all the facts carefully, made the correct opinion that on 04.12.2006 only one fixed deposit receipt was got prepared and the same was renewed on 14.12.2006. Complainant/appellant has taken total 6 fixed deposit receipts from the same Bank and Mandafiya is a Kasba therefore it is natural that complainant/appellant was in link with the then Bank Manager. On 14.12.2006 at the time of renewal, Complainant/appellant told that the previous fixed deposit receipt dated 04.12.2006 is at Nadiad and later did not give the same receipt to the Bank. Affidavit of the then Bank Manager has also been filed in the evidence. Therefore it is found correct that Complainant/appellant has filed the complaint in a wrong manner and the learned District Consumer Forum, Chittorgarh has dismissed the same correctly. Therefore judgment passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Chittorgarh deserves to be upheld and the appeal of the appellant/Complainant is liable to be dismissed.
In this regard it is also appropriate that firstly the Complainant filed a false complaint and thereafter also filed this appeal before the Commission falsely. In these circumstances, it is appropriate in the interest of justice that the cost of 10,000/- be also imposed on the appellant/Complainant. This compensation be deposited in the Consumer Welfare Fund.
This order is impugned before us. It is alleged by learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is an illiterate person. It is submitted that 03.12.2006 was a Sunday and the Complainant went to the Bank only on 04.12.2006 carrying cash of 64,000/- with him and that he converted the said sum after withdrawing some amount from his Saving Bank Account into two Fixed Deposits of 47,000/- each. It is submitted that he had been issued two receipts and he did not check the date on one receipt. He later learnt at the time of its maturity that one of the receipts was carrying date of 03.12.2006 while the two Fixed Deposits were opened on 04.12.2006.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the arguments of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the file.
The argument of learned Counsel to the effect that he opened two FDs of 47,000/-each on 04.12.2006 is a fabricated argument. In para 2 of his Complaint, he has clearly stated that one of the FDs was opened on 03.12.2006. The relevant paragraph of Complaint is reproduced as under:
That Complainant deposited 47,000/- ( Forty Seven Thousand) on 03.12.2006 and 47,000/- ( Forty Seven Thousand) on 04.12.2006, total 94,000/- ( Ninety Four Thousand) with the defendant No.3 Bank, for 60 months, for which two irrevocable Receipt No.025668 and 025656 Account No.61014406626 and 61013827454 were issued to the Complainant under the signatures of the then Branch Manager of defendant No.3. As per this scheme and the above-said Receipts, interest at the rate of 8.50 percent and 8 percent respectively was payable and the maturity amount payable to the Complainant was 71571 ( Seventy One Thousand Five Hundred Seventy One) and 69,840/- ( Sixty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred Forty) respectively on 03.12.2011 and 04.12.2011, total amount of both the fixed deposits 1,41,411/- ( One lakh forty one thousand four hundred eleven). But till date defendant no.3 has not paid the maturity amount of both the above-said fixed deposits to the Complainants. Photocopies of both the above-said fixed deposit are enclosed. Original copies of the same will be produced in the matter as and when required.
It is not in dispute that on 03.12.2006 being holiday, Bank was closed, so he could not have opened the Fixed Deposit on 03.12.2006.
Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the Saving Bank Account passbook of the Complainant which is on file. Entries on this passbook on 04.12.2006 shows that the Petitioner was having some amount in his Saving Bank Account and he had deposited 17,500/- in the Account and thereby withdrew sum of 47,000/- which was converted into a Fixed Deposit. Now if we consider the argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner that he was carrying a sum of 64,000/- and after withdrawing some amount he converted it into two Fixed Deposits, logic belies this argument. No explanation has come that when he was carrying 64,000/- why was the entire sum of 64,000/- not deposited in the Bank and only a sum of 17,500/- was deposited in the Bank on 04.12.2006 with the intention to convert it into a Fixed Deposit of 47,000/-. It does not appear logical that a person would deposit part of money in his Saving Bank Account for converting it into Fixed Deposit and withdraw the balance amount of 47,000/- for converting into another Fixed Deposit. The Rules of the Bank do not permit a customer to get a Fixed Deposit by depositing cash. Always the cash amount is deposited in the Saving Bank Account and thereafter, from that Saving Bank Account, Fixed Deposit is created. Also there are concurrent findings against the Petitioner.
The revisional jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited. It is not required to re-assess and re-appreciate the evidences on record and then to reach to its own conclusion on facts, especially when the findings on facts are concurrent. This Commission can interfere with the concurrent findings of the Foras below only when there is perversity in the order or where there is a wrong exercise of jurisdiction. It has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269" has held as under:
"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".
Again in "Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H&R Johnson (India) Ltd. and others, (2016) 8 Supreme Court Cases 286," the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated the same principle and has held as under:
"17. The National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has either failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in them or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons."
In T. Ramalingeswara Rao (Dead) Through L.Rs. and Ors. Vs. N.Madhava Rao and Ors. decided on 05.04.2019 passed in Civil Appeal No. 3408 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"12. When the two Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact against the Plaintiffs, which are based on appreciation of facts and evidence, in our view, such findings being concurrent in nature are binding on the High court. It is only when such findings are found to be against any provision of law or against the pleading or evidence or are found to be perverse, a case for interference may call for by the High Court in its second appellate jurisdiction."
From the above discussion, it is apparent that it is totally a false and frivolous Complaint which the Petitioner had filed and the Foras below have righty dismissed it and have rightly imposed the cost. We found no merit in the present Revision Petition. The Revision Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.