State Bank Of India vs Shashi Kumar Tapdia

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.11.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1201 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 11.10.2019 of the District Commission in complaint no. 171 of 2015.

Vide this Commission’s Order dated 02.02.2022 the petition was dismissed in default for lack of prosecution. The said Order is reproduced below:

Dated: 02.02.2022

ORDER

Taken up through video conferencing.

Repeatedly called out.

No one appears for the petitioner bank.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 27.11.2019 of the State Commission in appeal no. 1201 of 2019 arising out of the Order dated 11.10.2019 of the District Commission in complaint no. 171 of 2015.

We have perused the record.

The District Commission vide its Order dated 11.10.2019 had partly allowed the complaint. The award made by the District Commission is reproduced below:

“ ORDER

“The complaint of the complainant is partly allowed against the Opp. Party Bank and it has been directed to the Opp. Party Bank to give interest @ 6% p.a. on the total earned amount of Rs. 9,03,323/- as on 31.03.2011 during the period from 01.4.11 to 01.10.13, Rs.3,000/- be given to the Complainant towards the mental agony and the harassment and Rs.3,000/- towards the litigation expenses, 1 month’s time is hereby granted to comply this order. In case of not complying the order within the said period, the complainant will be entitled to get the simple interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount form today, the date of pronouncement of the order till the date of payment.”

(as per the translated version provided by the petitioner bank with its petition)

The appeal filed by the opposite party bank (the petitioner herein) was dismissed by the State Commission vide its Order dated 27.11.2019. The operative paragraph of the said Order of the State Commission is reproduced below:

“The Complainant is a Sr. Citizen. The complainant opened the PPF account with the Opp. Party Bank in the Jodhpur branch, which was later transferred to the Collectorate Branch Banipark, Jaipur. The account got matured on 31.03.2010. The maturity amount became Rs. 8,41,966/-. Thereafter, the complainant came to take the said matured amount on which he was asked to continue the said account and obtain the interest. On which the account was continued. Later on, the Government of India issuing a policy saying that the PPF HUF account of the 15 years will be closed. But the account of the complainant continued and the amounts continued to be deposited. Later on, when he requested, then on 01.10.2013, he was paid only Rs. 9,03,323/-. The interest of Rs. 1,61,146/- of the period of 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2013 was not given to him. The amount of the complainant kept on deposited with the Non Applicant Bank. The Non Applicant Bank continued to get the interest by utilizing this amount on another place. Though his PPF HUF account was closed after 15 years. The Ld. District Forum has correctly given the 6% interest during this period, which is generally the interest of the F.D. Thus, there is no erroneous order passed by the Ld. District Forum.

“Thus, the Appeal of the Appellants is liable to be dismissed, hence dismissed.”

(as per the translated version provided by the petitioner bank with its petition)

This petition has been filed apropos concurrent findings of the two fora below.

The respondent complainant has not been served till now.

On the face of it we notice no jurisdictional error or material irregularity. As such we have no hesitation in dismissing the petition in default in the absence of the petitioner today.

The instant revision petition no. 387 of 2020 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in this petition and to the learned counsel for the petitioner immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.

The miscellaneous application no. 33 of 2022 seeks restoration of the petition.

During the course of his arguments learned counsel submits on instructions that he wishes to unconditionally withdraw its application for restoration and that the petitioner bank will comply with the award made by the District Commission as also upheld by the State Commission within a period of four weeks from today.

In the wake of the above submission, the application no. 33 of 2022 is dismissed as withdrawn, without the option to file such application again before this Commission. The petitioner bank shall comply with the Order made by the District Commission within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘ enforcement ’ and for ‘ penalty ’, as per the law.

The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.