AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 09.08.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, Jaipur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 282 of 2017 in which order dated 25.01.2017 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no 174 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying to quash and set aside the order of State Commission.
While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent and the Respondent(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP) were Appellants in the said FA/282/2017 before the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner was Complainant and Respondent(s) were OP before the District Commission in the CC no. 174 of 2010. Notice was issued to the Respondents on 21.12.2018. Petitioner filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 27.03.2023 Respondents did not file written synopsis despite orders dated 26.04.2023 and 19.06.2023.
Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-
The complainant opened an account (Account No. 5104982/117) with OP bank and deposited an initial sum of Rs.50,000. The complainant also expressed the intention to invest an additional Rs.50,000 as a Fixed Deposit (FD). OP responded by issuing an FD Certificate (No. CB/A107145) and allotted Account No. 81034205096 for the proposed FD transaction. Upon the maturity of the FD, the complainant duly requested the withdrawal of the matured amount. OP assigned one of its employees, Sh. GS Chouhan, to facilitate the withdrawal process. Subsequently, the complainant signed the withdrawal form as per the bank's instructions. To the complainant’s dismay, despite the requested withdrawal, OP did not disburse the matured amount within the stipulated time. Instead, they surprisingly chose to invalidate the FD certificate, rendering it null and void. The OP informed the complainant of a distressing situation involving a significant amount of money and alleged that former employees, Sh. Bhatt and Cashier Rajendra, were involved in the fraudulent activity. Moreover, OP disclosed the ongoing investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into this matter. In an effort to ascertain the veracity of the situation, the complainant cross-checked the FD information on the official website of OP bank and thereafter submitted a formal written complaint, expressing grave apprehensions and demanding necessary actions. Unfortunately, the OP neglected the complaint, compelling the complainant to resort to legal measures by lodging a formal complaint before the Learned District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum in Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
Vide Order dated 25.01.17 in the CC no. 174 of 2010 the District Commission has directed the OP bank to pay the matured FD amount of Rs. 54,654/- along with 9% interest p.a. against FDR no. CB/A107145 and to pay Rs 5,000/- for mental agony and costs of the case. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 25.01.17 of District Commission, Respondent appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 09.08.18 in FA No. 282 of 2017 has reversed the order of District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bharatpur, Rajasthan and dismissed the case.
Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 09.08.2018 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:
(i) The Respondent bank admitted receiving Rs. 50,000/- in cash for the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), but failed to credit the amount, indicating a deficiency in service and fraudulent practice. The cashier's action of writing "cancelled fund not created" on the FDR raised suspicions of malpractice. Additionally, the bank acknowledged the cash deposit, but declined the maturity amount, citing CBI investigations. When the Petitioner approached the bank, it took two hours to declare the FDR bogus and cancelled it with two cross lines. The bank's delayed response and lack of evidence raise doubts about their claim. The impugned order should be set aside for overlooking these crucial aspects.
(ii) The details of the fixed deposit are accessible on the bank's website and net banking, which the Petitioner accessed after the bank refused to honour the FDR. The bank allegedly concealed the fraud committed by its employee, who pocketed the FDR amount. The bank, despite the creation of an overdraft (OD) account in the petitioner's name with an overdraft limit of Rs. 2.55 lakhs, still bears the obligation to debit the FDR amount from the said OD account. In essence, the petitioner contends that the bank's actions, from failing to honour the FDR to neglecting to address the alleged fraudulent activity by their employee, and even the creation of an OD account, collectively underscore a significant deficiency in the bank's services. This deficiency is further magnified by the absence of any communication regarding technical discrepancies and the bank's refusal to acknowledge their responsibility for debiting the FDR amount from the OD account.
(iii) OP should have implemented effective measures to prevent losses caused by their employees. Instead, they accused the complainant of seeking undue profits, disregarding the losses resulting from the employee's fraudulent actions. The State Commission’s decision to overturn the well-reasoned order of the District Forum appears unjustifiable in this context.
Heard counsels of both sides. Counsel for complainant argued that the District Forum's findings emphasize that the burden of proving any mistake lies with the OP. However, the OP failed to provide such evidence. The affidavit filed by the OP Branch Manager mentions a different FDR number (61034205098), which is irrelevant to the case. The OP's misleading statements have been exposed, and as a reputed bank in India, it cannot evade its liability. That the OP's system, which debits and credits amounts simultaneously, failed to debit the deposit for the FDR on the same day, as it should have. Despite having an internal audit/concurrent audit system, the OP did not detect and address the discrepancy promptly. The OP's annual Balance Sheet reflects deposits, including the said amount. The petitioner further argues that the Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), which holds the status of a negotiable instrument, is not subject to being invalidated on weak or unsubstantial grounds. The FDR continues to maintain its validity within the account until the specified date of 15.05.2010. Consequently, the petitioner asserts that the onus lies with the OP to duly honor the FDR, inclusive of the accruing interest until the date of payment. The central contention revolves around the fact that the FDR, issued on 20.11.2007, retains its inherent validity. Moreover, that in accordance with the bank's established accounting principles and internal operational systems, the FDR's presence should have been recognized and subsequently debited from the relevant account.
We have carefully gone through the order of State Commission as well as of District Forum, and the reply of OP bank before the District Forum. In its reply, OP has admitted that a Savings Bank Account No. 5104982/117 was opened in the branch, but the same was closed on 16.04.2010, prior to filing of present complaint, after withdrawing Rs.1200/- on 29.01.2010. Deposit of Rs.50,000/- in this account on 20.11.2007 is not denied by the OP. OP further stated that on the same day, complainant submitted an application for transferring an amount of Rs.50,000/- in his F.D. account along with a prescribed pay-in-slip, with instructions on the reverse ‘Please issue FDR for twelve months’. OP contended that complainant did not deposit separate cash for deposit in the F.D. account, the amount was to be transferred from SB A/c, but due to computer fault, could not be debited to SB A/c, but official (Mr. G.S. Chauhan) of the bank issued the FDR. This official had come to the branch temporarily from another branch and went to his parent branch on next day. OP contended that complainant continued to deposit cash and also withdraw money from his SB A/c. He withdrew Rs.40,000/- from the SB A/c on 22.05.2008. Thereafter, on 25.06.2008, complainant submitted an application for loan of Rs.2,55,000/- against his total receipts of credit of Rs.3,00,000/-. Upon processing the FDR A/c No. 61034205096 opened on 20.11.2007 for Rs.50,000/-, the bank came to know that the amount from his SB A/c has not been debited, so the FD could not be credited. OP denied that there is any mention of any amount deposited in FD of the complainant on the website, stating that there is zero balance in it.
District Forum in its order has stated that OP has admitted that on 20.11.2007, complainant was issued FD certificate, being CB/A 10715 for Rs.50,000/-, having account No. 61034205096 for a period of 12 months @9%, with maturity date of 20.11.2008 and maturity amount of Rs.54,654/-. The aforesaid FD was made by an employee of OP bank namely Sh. G.S. Chauhan, but OP has not filed affidavit of Sh. Chauhan in this regard. State Commission in its order has observed that it is not stated in the complaint by the Complainant as to whether the amount of Rs.50,000/- was deposited twice on 20.10.2007 (correct date should be 20.11.2007; appears to be a typo error). He has clearly stated that he deposited Rs.50,000/- and for depositing Rs.50,000/- he made up his mind only. Appellant Exhibited A-1 deposit receipt which clearly indicates that only Rs.50,000/- has been deposited and vide Exb.A-2 and A-3 instructions were issued to transfer the same Rs.50,000/-. Exb.A-4 shows that only Rs.50,000/- was deposited on 20.11.2007. Exb.A-5 details of FD account has been presented, where Rs.50,000/- has not been transferred. Exb.A-6 indicates that complainant sought loan against FD, in which the instant disputed FDR was mentioned, which was later struck down and another FDR detail was given. In these circumstances, the statement of OP appears correct that the complainant became aware that this FDR issued in his name was wrong, and after cancellation, the FDR was handed over to him. Thus, appellant has not done any deficiency in service but inadvertently a FDR was issued to the complainant, of which complainant wants to take unnecessary benefit.
On going through the order of State Commission, we find that it has given a well-reasoned order to set aside the order of District Forum. Complainant has not been able to establish that on 20.11.2007 he made two deposits of Rs.50,000/-, one for depositing in his SB A/c and another for depositing in FD A/c. We find no reasons to interfere with the findings of State Commission. Hence, the order of State Commission is upheld. Revision Petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their respective litigation costs.
The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.