Jyoti Soni & Anr vs Vijaya Bank

V.K. Jain, Presiding Member

The complainants/petitioners, namely, Jyoti Soni and Pariti Soni opened Jeevan Nidhi Deposit Accounts with the respondent Vijaya Bank. Their case is that a sum of Rs.13825/- was lying deposited in each of the accounts in addition to interest which had accrued on the said amounts but they were not permitted to withdraw the said amount from the bank. Being aggrieved, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking refund of the amount deposited in the above-referred accounts alongwith interest and compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the respondent bank which interalia stated in its reply that the accounts had been closed before 1994 and there was no deficiency on the part of the bank in rendering services to the account holders. It was also claimed that the record for the period prior to 1994 had been destroyed and only a ledger was available wherein no amount is shown deposited in the above-referred accounts.

The District Forum vide its order dated 26.3.2009 directed the respondent bank to refund the amount of Rs.13825/- to each of the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. w.e.f. 1.1.1990 alongwith compensation and litigation cost quantified at Rs.2,000/-.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 30.5.2013, the State Commission allowed the appeal and consequently set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Being aggrieved, the complainants are before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The State Commission noted that the accounts had been opened in the year 1987 and no withdrawal or deposit was made in the said accounts after December 1989. It was also noted that the complaint had been filed on 30.8.2007 after about 18 years and, therefore, was hopelessly time-bared.

When this matter came up for hearing on 12.7.2019, the petitioners/complainants were directed to place on record the original passbooks as well as the letter Ex. R-1 referred in the order of the State Commission. It was also directed that in case the original passbooks were filed before the District Forum, the petitioners shall state so on an affidavit within two weeks and in that case, the record of the District Forum shall be called. Though the affidavit in terms of the directions given by this Commission was not filed, the record of the District Forum has been received and it shows that the original passbooks of the above-referred accounts as well as the letter Ex. R-1 were filed before the District Forum.

Vide letter Ex.R-1 dated 4.9.2006, the Sr. Branch Manager of Vijaya Bank informed the Regional Manager in Chandigarh that no record for opening and closure of the accounts in question was available in their record since the record prior to 1992/1994 had been destroyed. It was further stated in the said letter that only one ledger containing running account was available which did not contain the captioned accounts.

There is no evidence of the respondent bank having refused to make payment of the amount lying deposited in the above-referred accounts of the complainants at any point of time before the consumer complaint came to be instituted. Even the letter dated 4.9.2006 was addressed by the Branch Office of the bank to its Regional Office and not to the complainants. In any case, if the period of limitation is computed from 4.9.2006, the consumer complaint instituted in the year 2007 was well within the limitation prescribed in Section 24A of the C.P. Act, the prescribed period of limitation being two years from the accrual of the cause of action.

Though the respondent Bank has claimed that the accounts were closed prior to 1994, no record evidencing closure of the accounts has been produced. The original pass-books were in the custody of the complainant and were filed by them before the District Forum. Had the accounts been closed, an entry to this effect would have been made in the pass-books as per the prevalent practice and procedures of the bank. Since there is no endorsement of closure of the accounts in the passbooks the obvious inference would be that the accounts were never closed. Moreover, had the accounts been closed, the amount outstanding in the accounts at the time of closure would have been paid to the account holders. There is no evidence or even allegation of the outstanding amounts having been paid to the accounts holders. Therefore, I have no hesitation in holding that the respondent bank has failed to pay the amount which was lying deposited in the accounts of the complainants.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. The order passed by the State Commission, however, is restored with the modification that interest to the complainants shall be payable @ 6% p.a. w.e.f. date mentioned in the order of the District Forum. The revision petition stands disposed of.