CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, Bank of India vs RAJENDRA GOVINDBHAI PARIKH

THIS appeal arises from order dated 6.9.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Case No. 151 of 1997. The learned Forum has partly allowed the complaint directing the opponent bank to pay to the complainants compensation in the sum of Rs. 40,499.49 with interest at the rate of 16% p.a. from 9.8.1997 till payment and cost and compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,000/-. The opponent bank has brought under challenge the impugned order in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

IN the first place we will set out broad facts concerning the present complaint in the context of their dealings with the opponent bank. The complainants deposited Rs. 5,59,000/- between December, 1993 and February, 1994 in Fixed Deposits under the MIC scheme of the opponent bank. At the same time they obtained overdraft facility in their OD Account No. 22068 to the extent of Rs. 5,03,000/-. Complainant No. 1 Rajendra Govindbhai Parikh happened to be an employee of the opponent bank. There was a fraud with the opponent bank to the extent of Rs. 1 crore to which he was alleged to be a party. He was suspended on account of his alleged involvement to the said fraud for the period between 28.11.1988 and 13.6.1994. On 26.12.1994 charge sheet was issued in a departmental proceedings initiated against complainant No. 1. During the pendency of the departmental inquiry the complainants requested for premature encashment of the aforesaid fixed deposits on or around 30.8.1996. They requested for crediting the proceeds of the said fixed deposit receipts in their overdraft account number 22068. Without waiting for the request being granted or refused by the opponent bank, they issued a cheque bearing No. 507792 on 1.9.1996 in favour of Hoffland Finance Limited for Rs. 50,000/- towards purchase of shares. Opponent bank issued letter dated 7.9.1996 to the Chief Regional Manager of the bank for consideration of the request for premature encashment in view of the fact that deparmental proceedings were pending against complainant No. 1. By 30.8.1996 the opponent bank informed the complainants that request for premature encashment could not be accepted. On 31.12.1996 the complainant No. 1 was dismissed from service at the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. On 15.1.1997 complainants again requested the opponent bank for premature payment of the fixed deposits. On 27.5.1997 they issued notice to the bank inter alia saying that after deducting the amount due in the overdraft account, balance might be paid over to the complainants, who also claimed damages in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- for withholding payment of the fixed deposits. On 25.6.1997 the complainants filed the aforesaid complaint before the learned Forum. During the pendency of the complaint, opponent bank made payment of Rs. 29,100.51 to the complainants by pay order by way of premature encashment of fixed deposits on 7.8.1997 while also closing the overdraft account. On 28.10.1997 the opponent bank filed affidavit in reply before the learned Forum. It is in the background of the aforesaid facts that the complainants case and the defence of the opponent bank might be appreciated.

It is not in dispute that the whole cause of action which has been alleged in the complaint in question by the complainants owes its origin to the request for premature encashment of the fixed deposits. If this is so, the whole complaint was without basis in the absence of either contract enabling premature encashment or any such law (rule). The complainants could not have sought premature encashment of their fixed deposits inasmuch as the contract [in the present case of fixed deposits] is required to be performed as per the time and place fixed by the parties. When the time for repayment was fixed by the parties as per the fixed deposits, repayment before the expiry of such time was out of question. If that is so, no deficiency in service could ever have been alleged by the complainants against the opponent bank. This is one aspect of the matter. It will be interesting to note from the aforesaid facts that before the request for premature encashment of the fixed deposits was considered or could be considered by the opponent bank, the complainant had the courage to issue cheque for Rs. 50,000/- in favour of Hoffland Finance Limited towards purchase of shares. The fate of such an action on the part of the complainants was sealed and was known to the complainants themselves. The cheque was accordingly dishonoured. We fail to understand how can there be any deficiency in service in respect of dishonour of cheque when there was no balance in the account from which the cheque was drawn. This is second part of the complainants case which would fail for the self same facts alleged by the complainants. The fact that the opponent bank was entitled to detain premature payment of fixed deposits held by the complainants on the ground that the complainant No. 1 was dismissed from his service was in addition to the above basic facts and that also might have provided justification to the opponent bank in seeing that the premature payments of the fixed deposits might not be made to the complainants. However, in the present case, the payments themselves were not due to the complainants. Therefore, there was no question of considering the reason for stoppage of payment of fixed deposits at a premature point of time. Complainant''s case also deserved to be rejected at the threshold on account of the fact that they knew that there was no balance and yet they drew cheque for Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of shares. In our considered opinion, the learned Forum appears to have overlooked these primary aspects of the case before it.

SINCE the payments were made during the pendency of the complaint, there was no amount due and payabe by the opponent bank to the complainants in so far as their fixed deposits were concerned. In that view of the matter, direction issued by the learned Forum is also not justified. In the result, following order is required to be passed bearing in mind the facts and circumstances of the case. ORDER Impugned order dated 6.9.1999 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Surat in Case No. 151 of 1997 is hereby set aside. The complaint of the complainants will stand dismissed. This appeal is accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.