SHRIMANT MALOJIRAJE SAHAKARI BANK LTD. vs ATMARAM PANDURANG BOBADE, & ORS.

These three Revision Petitions, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by Shrimant Malojiraje Sahakari Bank Limited (for short "the Bank"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaints, are directed against a common order dated 13.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra at Mumbai (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeals No.166, 167 and 168 of 2009. By the impugned order, the State Commission has affirmed the orders all dated 30.12.2008, passed by the Additional Consumer District Redressal Forum, Pune (for short "the District Forum") in Complaints No.APDF/159/2007, APDF/160/2007 and APDF/161/2007. By the said order, while accepting the Complaints filed by the Respondents herein, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not permitting pre-mature encashment of the Fixed Deposit Receipts, totaling 17,00,000/-, obtained by the Complainants from the Bank on several dates, for different periods, bearing rate of interest @ 10% p.a., the District Forum had directed the Bank to pay to the Complainants within six weeks, the amounts due under the Fixed Deposit Receipts in question along with the interest @ 10% p.a.

The sole ground, on which the correctness of the orders passed by the Fora below is sought to be questioned, is that in view of the letter dated 04.11.2003, purportedly addressed by all the three deposit holders to the Bank, stating that they had no objection, at all, "in attaching" the subject Fixed Deposit Receipts in their names against the loan account of one M/s Siddhivinayak Motors, the Fora below committed material irregularity in issuing the afore-noted directions.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record, including the afore-noted communication, we are of the opinion that in so far as the direction for refund of the amounts due under the Fixed Deposit Receipts are concerned, the Petitions are bereft of any merit. Admittedly, no other document creating a charge on the subject Fixed Deposit Receipts in favour of the Bank was got executed from the Depositors (the Complainants) who still continue to be in the possession of all the original FDRs, which were even shown to us, without any endorsement thereon in favour of the bank. In the light of the said factual scenario, we are in complete agreement with the following observations in the impugned order:

"Since the deposit receipts admittedly stand in the name of respective Complainants, if the Bank wants to allege something else against these documents it is for the Bank to establish their such case. They miserably failed to do so. The affidavits in evidence of their authorized signatory or authorized official - Ajit Shinde dated 07.01.2008 neither establishes any such case to disclose the documents i.e. Fixed Deposit Receipts nor it establishes any case of alleged consent by respective Complainants to pledge their respective deposit receipts for a loan/overdraft taken by Hanumant Govind Chandgude. In his Affidavit - Ajit Shinde only makes a reference that alleged consent of respective Complainants is witnessed by documents but it does not speak anything about the proof of said document or that said document is executed in his presence. Said document, copy of which is produced on record, it is dated 04.11.2003. The signatures thereon, per se, do not tally with the signatures of the respective Complainants. Besides that, since case of the Bank is solely based upon this document, they ought to have established it by tendering proper evidence as per the provisions of Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and which they miserably failed to do so. In the circumstances, once the case of the Bank about Complainants pledging their respective deposit receipts for a loan taken by Hanumant Govind Chandgude is not established; the Bank has no lien over the fixed deposits in question."

In our opinion, therefore, the orders passed by the Fora below do not suffer from any Jurisdictional error, warranting interference in our limited Revisional Jurisdiction. Consequently, all the Revision Petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that since the entire amount due to the Complainants, in terms of the impugned order, is stated to have been deposited by the Bank in the State Commission, which amounts are stated to have been kept in a Fixed Deposit Receipt, and there being no embargo on the Complainants in moving the State Commission for withdrawal of the same, the Bank should not be made liable to pay interest on the amounts so deposited, from the date of deposit of the said amount by the Bank in the State Commission. The said amount(s), stated to have been so deposited by the Bank, shall be released to the Complainants forthwith on their making appropriate applications before the State Commission, along with accrued interest, if any, on the said amounts. Any shortfall in the total amount payable in terms of the impugned order, as modified herein, shall be made good by the Bank within four weeks of the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of the Complaints till realization.

All the three Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.