Raghunandan Prasad vs Assistant General Manager, State Bank Of India

Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Presiding Member

Heard Mr. Ritesh Patil, Advocate for the petitioner.

This revision petition has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar at Patna dated 18.12.2019 passed in First Appeal No. 64 of 2017, whereby the State Commission has partly allowed the appeal and awarded Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation by way of interest on the amount deposited by the petitioner and Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation, to the petitioner.

The petitioner filed Consumer Complaint alleging that he had deposited Rs. 6 lakhs in State Bank of India, Secretariat Branch at Patna on 09.01.1998 under Term Deposit (TDR) for a period of two months. The petitioner applied for an overdraft of Rs.1,50,000/- against the aforesaid TDR on 28.02.2001. The petitioner also filed an application on 03.03.2001, for extending the TDR for 60 months with effect from 09.03.1998 to 08.03.2003, which was allowed by Assistant General Manager. But ignoring the order of Assistant General Manager, after adjusting the amount of overdraft of Rs.1,50,000/- from maturity benefit, the remaining amount has been transferred to the account of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner suffered financial loss, on interest. On these allegations, the complaint was filed on 25.01.2007, claiming 12% p.a. interest on the amount deposited by him.

The bank contested the case and filed its written reply on 26.05.2007 in which it has been specifically denied that any application for extension/renewal of TDR was made on 03.03.2001. It has been stated that initial TDR of the petitioner was for a period of two months but as per rules of the bank, period of TDR was extended time to time up to 12.03.2001. When the petitioner applied for over draft on 28.02.2001, then after adjusting the amount of overdraft from maturity benefit of TDR, remaining amount was deposited in the savings account of the petitioner on 12.03.2001, according to the rules of the bank. The petitioner made a complaint in this respect before Bank Ombusdon, Patna, who after examining the case of the parties by order dated 06.11.2006 found that there was no application for extension/renewal of TDR as alleged dated 03.03.2001. When the petitioner took facility of overdraft on 28.02.2001 then as per rules of the bank the overdraft was adjusted from the maturity benefit of the TDR and the remaining amount was transferred to his account. The alleged application for renewal bears the date 03.04.2001 and it does not bear the signature of the Assistant General Manager as alleged. The complaint was not maintainable.

The petitioner filed rejoinder reply to the counter reply of the bank on 28.02.2006. Both the parties filed their affidavit of evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum by order dated 09.12.2013 dismissed the complaint holding that no application for renewal/extension of TDR was filed on 03.03.2001.The alleged application bears the date 03.04.2001, but does not bear the signature of the Assistant General Manager as alleged by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in FA No.10 of 2014 before State Commission which was allowed by the State Commission by order dated 10.06.2015 and the matter was remanded to the District Forum for deciding, the Issue as to how the bank has made full and final payment of TDR adjusting the amount of overdraft Rs.1.25 lakhs, which was not even communicated to the complainant, although the circular of the bank dated 03.07.2006 provides a contrary provision for renewal of the TDR. The bank challenged the aforesaid order in Revision Petition No.2376 of 2015 before this Commission, which was dismissed on 04.11.2015.

After remand, the District Forum by order dated 31.12.2016 held that as the State Commission has observed that there was deficiency in service on the part of the bank as such District Forum has no option but to allow the complaint. On this finding, the complaint was allowed and bank was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- by way of compensation to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant challenged the aforesaid order in FA No.64 of 2017. The bank has also challenged the foresaid order in FA No.55 of 2017 before State Commission, Bihar. Both the appeals were consolidated and heard together. By impugned order dated 18.12.2019 State Commission found that there was some deficiency in service as such the order of the District Forum was modified and compensation was enhanced to Rs.1,75,000/- and cost of litigation was enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. Hence, this revision petition has been filed.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the petitioner deposited Rs.6 lakhs on 09.01.1998 under term deposit scheme for a period of two months. It is admitted that under the circular of the bank, in the absence of any contrary request, term deposit had to be extended time to time for a period of two months. When the petitioner applied for an overdraft on 28.02.2001, then the petitioner also moved an application dated 03.03.2001 for extension of term deposit for a period of 60 months with effect from 09.03.1998, on 03.03.2001, which was allowed by the Assistant General Manager. But, later on, ignoring the application of the petitioner as well as the order passed in it, the amount has been illegality transferred in the savings account of the petitioner on 12.03.2001. Thus, there was deficiency in service. Both the Foras below found that there was deficiency in service but instead of granting full interest on TDR @ 12% per annum, the compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- has been allowed. Even without any application TDR has to be extended under the Circular of the bank.

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. District Consumer Forum and State Commission have concurrently held that there was no such application dated 03.03.2001 for extension/renewal of TDR by the petitioner. The alleged application relied upon by the petitioner is dated 03.04.2001, but it did not bear the signature of the Assistant General Manager as alleged. This concurrent findings of fact cannot be challenged in any way in this revision.

Admittedly, the petitioner applied for overdraft of Rs.1,25,000/- over his TDR on 28.02.2001, which was allowed on 12.03.2001. According to the bank as per rule, after adjusting the amount of overdraft from the maturity benefit of TDR, remaining amount was transferred to the savings account of the petitioner. The petitioner relied upon the circular of the bank vide letter No.PB/23/06-07 dated 03.07.2006, which was not in existence on 12.03.2001 as such no benefit of this circular can be given to the petitioner. District Forum, only on the premises that as the matter has been remanded State Commission, held that there might be deficiency in service. State Commission also without considering the evidence on record accepted the finding of District Forum respect of deficiency in service and enhanced the compensation, although Bank Ombudsman, Patna, by order dated 06.11.2006 had found that there was no application for extension/renewal of TDR as alleged dated 03.03.2001, nor there was any rule at that time for extension of the TDR, after adjusting amount of overdraft. Without setting aside the order of Bank Ombudsman, no relief could have been granted to the petitioner.

ORDER

The revision has no merit and it is dismissed.