JASHOMATINANDAN DAS vs State Bank of India

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 13.10.2004 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Gujarat, Ahmedabad, Gujarat dismissing appeal against the order dated 26.6.2003 of a District Forum whereby complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed primarily on the ground of its being barred by limitation.

FACTS giving rise to this revision lie in narrow compass. Petitioner was maintaining Savings Bank Account No. 3225 with the respondent/opposite party No. 1. This account was lying dormant. Petitioner had invested in fixed deposit an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with Steel Authority of India Limited (SAIL) and the maturity date thereof was 23.1.1992. It was alleged that one Jayesh Chandulal Vaidya had served as Accountant-cum-Cashier with the petitioner from 1985 to 1990 and he knew about the existence of said Savings Bank account. The maturity amount of said fixed deposit was sent by SAIL through cheque by post and Jayesh Chandulal Vaidya in collision with postman obtained the cheque and deposited it in the said account. Thereafter, in conspiracy with his friend Nilesh Bhogilal Dave, Jayesh Chandulal Vaidya withdrew the amount of the cheque from the said account. It was further alleged that on Audit Department making inquiry from the petitioner regarding the said fixed deposit on or around 1.9.1994, the petitioner sent a letter to SAIL but it did not give any reply. Petitioner, thus, filed complaint case No. 99 of 1994 before the concerned District Forum on 1.9.1994 against SAIL. By the letter dated 18.5.1995, SAIL intimated the petitioner that maturity amount was sent by cheque and credited in the aforesaid account on 23.1.1992. It was stated that after committing fraud/forgery, said Jayesh Chandulal Vaidya and his friend had misappropriated lakh of rupees of the petitioner authority and this fact came to the notice of the petitioner for the first time in 1997. Regarding fraud/forgery, an FIR was lodged by the petitioner. It was pleaded that the respondent Bank permitted withdrawal of the maturity amount of fixed deposit on the strength of cheques on which signatures were forged by Jayesh Chandulal Vaidya and the bank did not tally the signatures appearing on those cheques with the specimen signatures of the person operating the said savings bank account. Complaint filed seeking certain reliefs by the petitioner was contested by the respondent. It was, inter alia alleged that the complaint was barred by limitation and the bank could not be held liable for any claim arising out of fraud and forgery by the men of the petitioner. We have heard Mr. Mayur R. Shah for petitioner and Mr. Ram Lal Roy for the respondent.

Petitioner alleged that it was through the letter dated 18.5.1995 sent by SAIL but it learnt that the maturity amount of the fixed deposit sent through cheque by SAIL, was credited in Savings Bank Account No. 3225 on 23.1.1992. It is not in dispute that this Savings Bank Account was closed by the petitioner some time in 1994. It is also not in dispute that the complaint was filed by the petitioner on 7.2.1998. The State Commission was of the view that the petitioner should have known about the withdrawal of the amount in question at the time the account was closed in the year 1994. It was further of the view that as the petitioner had learnt about the payment of maturity amount through a cheque by SAIL and depositing of that cheque in said Savings Bank Account by the letter dated 18.5.1995, the limitation for the purpose of filing complaint would start running from 18.5.1995 and taking any of the said two dates, the complaint filed on 7.2.1998 was barred by time. The State Commission was of the opinion that year of 1997 as set out in the complaint could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of limitation as it could not be said that petitioner had come to know about the fraud/forgery having been practised by the said persons for the first time in 1997. We do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the said conclusion reached by the State Commission. Decision in Canara Bank v. Canara Sales Corporation & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1603, has no applicability to the fact of present case. Revision petition, thus, deserves to be dismissed being without any merit. Dismissed as such leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Revision Petition dismissed.