State Bank Of India vs Sushma Goyal

The present Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (for short "the State Commission") dated 22.08.2017 in Appeal No.507 of 2010. The said Appeal was filed by the State Bank of India, C. B. Ganj, Branch Bareily against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, 2nd Bareilly dated 17.02.2010 in Complaint Case No.06/2009.

The Complaint had been filed by the Respondent Smt.Sushma Goyal before the District Forum against the Petitioner, i.e., State Bank of India, C. B. Ganj, Branch Bareily, State Bank of India, Bada Bazar, Bareily, Assistant General Manager, Area 1st, State bank of India Zonal Office and Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Moti Mehal Marg, Hajratganj, Lucknow. The District Forum partly allowed the Complaint against all the Opposite Parties in the Complaint and issued the following directions:

"This Complaint of the Petitioner Sushma Goyal is partially admitted against the aforesaid Defendants. The Defendants are directed that they do prepare again F.D.R. of term deposit amount which was deposited on 22.06.2007 and would be matured on 26.03.2012 jointly in the name of the petitioner and her husband Rakesh Kumar Goyal and as per rules do pay the same or liability on maturity jointly or whatever manner. The Defendants do pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) towards mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) towards litigation charges to the Petitioner. The Defendants do comply with the order within the period of one month."

This order of the District Forum was impugned only by State Bank of India, C. B. Ganj, Branch Bareily and other Opposite Parties did not challenge this order. Accordingly, the order of the District Forum has attained finality against the other Opposite Parties, namely, State Bank of India, Bada Bazar, Bareily, Assistant General Manager, Area 1st, State bank of India Zonal Office and Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Moti Mehal Marg, Hajratganj, Lucknow.

The brief facts of the case are that the Respondent had an account no.10161473388 with the Bada Bazar Branch Bareily of State Bank of India. She had included the name of her husband Rakesh Kumar Goyal as her co-account holder. She had purchased Fixed Deposit Receipt No.0381807 from the above account from Opposite Party No.2, State Bank of India Bada Bazar Branch for a period of 57 months. Since her husband was an employee of State Bank of India, the benefit available under the Rules of the State Bank of India were provided on this deposit and this deposit was then called as Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR). The name of the husband was also included in the STDR in order to get the benefit of 1% extra interest as per the policy of the State Bank of India wherein her husband was an employee. Her husband retired and his pension was paid twice by the State Bank of India. In order to recover the excess amount paid to wards pension to her husband, the STDR which was opened in Bada Bazar Branch of State Bank of India, Bareily was transferred to C. B. Ganj, Branch Bareily and thereafter, it was broken and the money due towards the excess payment of pension was recovered from the said sum. Respondent on coming to know this fact objected to it and filed the Complaint.

In her Complaint, the Complainant had alleged that her account, i.e., the STDR was wrongly transferred from Bada Bazar Branch, where she had her saving account, to C. B. Ganj, Branch Bareily without her permission and also in violation of the rule. She had also stated that the money which was kept in the STDR solely belonged to her and it was she who had to pay the TDS and other legal dues and that her husband although included as a joint owner, had nothing to do with the said STDR. She had alleged that the deduction of the money, due from her husband, from her account is wrong and amounts to deficiency in service by the C.B.Ganj Branch, State Bank of India, Bareily where she was holding her saving account and she had her STDR.

The claim was contested by all the Opposite Parties. It was contended that the Bank retains the lien over all the deposits of the customers and can recover any dues payable by them from such deposits. Their contention is that they had acted as per the rules and regulations governing the Banks and recovered the public money which had wrongly been paid to the husband of the Respondent/Complainant. It is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

The parties led their evidences and on the basis of the evidence, the District Forum reached to the following conclusion:

"the learned counsel of the defendants has also given highly force on this argument that this is internal matter of the bank that the same can transfer any deposited amount from one branch to another branch; but the opposite party itself in their letter dated 10.09.08, photocopy of which is Ka.No.6/10 has admitted this that generally transfer of any account operating in any branch to another branch wherein Term Deposit is also included is done on the written request of the account holder. In the present mater, any such request in writing has not been done by the petitioner or her husband and Term deposit of the petitioner has been transferred from one branch to another branch by the defendant, which is service defects in own its. The defendants have not shown any such circumstances wherein the defendant do transfer Term deposit from one account to another account; and nor they have drawn our attention towards any such rules and regulations. This issue is also admittable to the defendants also that shri Rakesh Kumar Goyal husband of the petitioner has transferred Rs.13,50,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) in the account of the petitioner, in which name of husband of the petitioner is also involved or had been mentioned.

The learned counsel of the defendant has also put heavy force on this argument too that husband of the petitioner had direct ownership on this amount, the Petitioner had not but whatever Term Deposit receipt has been made, first name therein is of the Petitioner and husband of the Petitioner is in second name. Hence, the Petitioner had no absolute ownership of the amount for the argument then her husband Rakesh Kumar Goyal was not in the absolute ownership and absolute ownership of husband of the Petitioner cannot be said on the joint term deposit. In this connection, our attention has been drawn on behalf of the Petitioner towards one solely circular of State Bank of India whose page no. 7 at serial no. 22 it has been mentioned that term deposit can be transferred from one branch to another branch on the written application of the depositor. Moreover it, description of additional interest for bank staff has been given at serial no. 41, which interest bank staff with the solely name of retired bank employee or jointly with ex-member if any amount shall be deposited then more interest shall be received thereon and one declaration has to make in this connection; though, the ld. Counsel of the Defendant has also this argument that this declaration has to make by the bank employee; that is why depositor is mentioned in this rule; but additional interest is not dispute here; though dispute is this that whether the defendant after breaking term deposit without any written consent of the Petitioner after withdrawing any amount therefrom could have adjusted in the amount which is payable towards husband of the Petitioner or not . In this connection, it has been cleared that the amount as deposited in the term deposit receipt is not blamant under Section 171 of Contract Act and bank cannot raise its own any encumbrance on this.

It is the argument of the Ld. Counsel of the Petitioner that whatever Fixed Deposit of term deposit amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) has been got made, this amount was indeed amount as given in gift by husband of the Petitioner. The Ld. Counsel of the Defendants has objection on this argument and they say that in which way gift has been defined in the Income Tax Act, the same has not been given in this manner, hence this amount shall be considered even of husband of the Petitioner. But whatever definition of gift has been given in the Income Tax Act, the same is for charging income tax, and Income Tax Department can interfere in this regard, Defendants cannot interfere. Defendants can only express their opinion even on the interest rate and once this amount has come in the joint account and thereafter out from that term deposit receipt amount to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakh only) has been prepared wherein first name is of the Petitioner then in such condition bank without written consent of both the depositors cannot adjust amount payable to husband of the Petitioner after breaking the aforesaid term deposit; and thus the defendants by dong such has clearly made error in service. Hence, the Defendants are bound to pay liability of amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) which has been deposited on 26.06.2007 and whose maturity is due on 26.03.2012 and whatever amount they being broken had adjusted, the defendants are held responsible to make again F.D.R. of the same. Moreover it, the Defendants are held liable to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards litigation charges to the Petitioner. As far as amount of Rs.3,14,440/- (Rupees Three lakhs fourteen thousand for hundred forty only) of the Defendants is concerned which has been paid to the husband of the Petitioner twice due to error of the Defendants, they can recover the same in any legitimate manner.

The other contentions of the Opposite Parties were also rejected by the District Forum and the Complaint was partly allowed.

This order was impugned only by State Bank of India, C.B. Ganj Branch Manager, Bareily. The Respondent's husband was having a saving account in C.B. Branch and was credited his pension twice in this account of C. B. Branch. The Petitioner took the same plea which had been taken before the District Forum and his pleas were rejected and it was found that there was deficiency in service and the District Forum's order was upheld.

The State Commission's order is impugned before this Commission on the ground that it was the public money which has wrongly been transferred in the account of the husband of the Respondent/ Complainant and that the Bank can recover the same from the STDR which was in the joint name of the Respondent as well as her husband and that no deficiency in service is committed by the Petitioner in doing that. Reliance has been placed on the findings of this Commission in the case of "The Branch Manager, State Bank of India vs. Padmakar Mirajkar, Revision Petition No.1580 of 2015 decided on 07.12.2017 in paragraphs 5, 9 and 13 which are reproduced as under:

"5. During hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has drawn attention to section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, saying that the Bank had lien on the amount in the individual Bank account of the complainant and hence, they had every right to recover the said amount from that account. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has drawn attention to an order made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors., (1992) 2 SCC 330, in which it has been stated as follows:-

"By mercantile system the bank has a general lien over all forms of securities negotiable instruments including FDRs deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business in absence of an agreement to the contrary. The general lien is a valuable right of the banker. Banker has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer's debit balance."

From the factual matrix of the case, it is abundantly clear, rather admitted by the complainant himself that the amount of Rs.2 lakhs was remitted to the father of Ms. Elisabeth twice. The Bank has taken the stand that they sent the payment instructions again, following the request of the complainant and Ms. Elisabeth, which resulted in the remittance of the amount twice. It is also clear that the beneficiary or Ms. Elisabeth did not take requisite steps to return the excess amount admittedly received by them. The complainant has also not pleaded anywhere that he made any steps to get the amount back from Ms. Elisabeth or her father and remit the same to the Bank. It is clear, therefore, that the complainant has not come before the consumer fora with clean hands, as it was his duty to ensure that the public money of the Bank is not lost by way of sending the amount twice to the beneficiary. The complainant should have made his best efforts to help the Bank in recovering the amount from the beneficiary, more so, when he himself was a joint account holder with Ms. Elisabeth.

Based on the discussion above, it is made out that the State Commission as well as the District Forum have not been able to make a correct analysis of the facts and circumstances on record. The excess money, which is stated to have been sent by the Bank to the father of Ms. Elisabeth is in fact public money and the Bank has every right to recover the same. It was the duty of the complainant, therefore, to ensure that recovery is got made of the excess amount remitted by the Bank.

It is argued that both the Fora below have acted erroneously while allowing the Complaint and there is illegality in the order and injustice has been caused to the Petitioner.

The Revision Petition is contested on behalf of the Respondent. It is submitted that the Revision Petition is not maintainable in the present form because all the parties to the Complaint are not made party before this Commission. It is further argued that the findings of the Fora below is based on the documents dated 10.09.2008 proved on record by the Bank itself which clearly states that no account can be transferred from one branch to another branch without the written request of the account holder. It is further argued that this court while dealing with the Revision Petition has no jurisdiction to reappreciate and reconsider the evidences and to reach to a different conclusion. It is submitted that there is no illegality and no wrong exercise of the Jurisdiction in the present case and therefore, the Petition is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the arguments and perused the record. There is no dispute that under Section 21(b) of the Act, this court has very limited Jurisdiction. The court is only required to see whether the Fora below have exercised their jurisdiction wrongly while dealing with the matters. This court in Revision Petition is not permitted to reappreciate or reconsider the evidences and reach to a different conclusion. The duty is of the Petitioner to show that there is a wrong exercise of Jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has so held in "Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - (2011) 11 SCC 269:

"23. Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two Fora".

From the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it stands proved on record that the Respondent had a bank account in Bada Bazar Branch of State Bank of India in which she made her husband co-holder. She however was the one who was operating the said account. It was she who opened the STDR from her saving bank account. She also made her husband as a joint owner of the said STDR. It is also admitted and proved fact that the husband of the Respondent was employed with C. B. Branch, State Bank of India Bareily and had retired from there. He was having his own saving account there. By mistake, the Petitioner had credited the pension of husband of the Respondent twice in his account. The Petitioner wanted to recover the said excess money paid to the husband of the Respondent. They wrote several letters to her husband asking him to return the same. My attention had been drawn by learned Counsel for the Petitioner to the letter dated 14.12.2007 written by the husband of the Respondent wherein he had admitted his liability to return the said money and had allowed the excess payment to be recovered from his pension. This letter does not in any way permit the Petitioner to recover the money which was paid in excess to him from his FDRs. Learned Counsel has argued that Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act permits the Bank to recover the money from any security. For this purpose, he also relied on the findings of this Commission in the case of Padmakar Mirjakar's case (supra) wherein the excess money paid to the father of wife of the account holder was recovered from the Fixed Deposit of the account holder. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the findings in the case of Padmakar Mirjakar's case (supra) is differentiable on the facts. It is submitted that in that case, the transfer of money to father of wife of Padmakar Mirjakar was done on the joint request of him and his wife and therefore, it was in light of these facts that the court had passed the said order. It is argued that in this case, the money which was paid to the husband of the Respondent in the form of double pension was not done on the instructions of either the Respondent or the husband of the Respondent and therefore, they cannot on their own recover it by transferring the STDR from one Branch to another in violation of their own circular and contrary to bank norms.

I have given thoughtful consideration to the contention on this point and also satisfied that the findings in the case of Padmakar Mirajkar's case (supra) are given on different set of facts. In the case of Padmakar Mirjakar, the money was transferred from the joint account of Mr. Padmakar Mirajkar and his wife on their instructions but the Bank by mistake transferred the money twice to father-in-law of Padmakar Mirajkar and it was this amount which the Bank had recovered. The facts of this case are entirely different and therefore, the findings had no relevance.

I have perused the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Syndicate Bank vs. Vijay Kumar And Others (1992) 2 SCC 331. Those findings have been given on different set of facts. In that case, FDR was secured as a guarantee against the bank guarantee which was issued by the Judgment Debtor in execution before the High Court. It was on the interpretation of the meaning of the bank guarantee and the FDs given as a security to those bank guarantees that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has given those findings. In the present case, the FD had not been kept as bank guarantee by the Respondent or her husband against any loan or lien. Therefore, there is no relevance of Section 171 of Indian Contract Act to the facts of this case.

There is no denial by the Petitioner that there is a circular no.06/10 dated 10.09.2008 and this circular has been proved before the District Forum. This circular clearly states that no account of any person can be transferred from one branch to another branch without written request of the account holders. In this case, the account which was transferred to C.B. Ganj Branch of the State Bank of India from Bada Bazar Branch of State Bank of India was done without written permission of the account holder. This is clear deficiency in service and I thus found no illegality or infirmity or excess use of Jurisdiction on the part of the Fora below. The Revision Petition has no merits and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.