AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Delay condoned.
Challenge in this Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner Bank (Opposite Party in the Complaint) under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short “the Act”) is to the Order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengalat Kolkata (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 975 of 2012. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while affirming the finding of facts returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata (for short, “the District Forum”) has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner, United Bank of India (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Bank”). The District Forum vide its Order dated 16.10.2012 allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant/Respondent herein and directed the United Bank of India to pay the maturity value of the FDR No. 798448 dated 31.03.1983 to the Complainant alongwith interest accrued thereon, compensation etc.
The facts material to the case are that the Complainant invested a sum of ₹14,500/- on 31.03.1983 in Fixed Deposit for 60 months with the Petitioner United Bank of India. The Bank accepted the said amount and issued a Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 798448 dated 31.03.1983 and also agreed to refund the maturity amount after 60 months.
The Complainant obtained a loan from the Petitioner Bank in the form of a Cash Credit Account. Since, a dispute arose between the Complainant and the Petitioner Bank in respect of the said loan facility, the Petitioner Bank approached to the Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal II against the Complainant for recovery of the said loan.In view of the said proceedings, the Bank held up various assets of the Complainant including the Fixed Deposit dated 31.03.1983.It is averred by the Complainant that theyhad paid the entire outstanding amount to the Bank to the tune of ₹13,00,000/- approximately as per the Order of the Tribunal towards full and final settlement of the dues.It is alleged that during the entire proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, the entire Business Premises and/or the Manufacturing Unit of the Complainant was put under lock and key at the instance of Petitioner Bank by appointing a Receiver through the Tribunal. However, while taking the repossession of the Business Premises/Manufacturing Unit it was found by the Complainant that the entire Premises/ Manufacturing Unit had been totally vandalized and all the valuable articles were stolen. The matter was brought to the notice of the Tribunal and complaints regarding incident were lodged with the Local Police Station, Kalighat. It was further noticed by the Complainant that the business premises was occupied by a third party by breaking open the lock.
It is also asserted by the Complainant that as the FDR was not kept as security against the Cash Credit loan, the Petitioner Bank was under an obligation to refund the amount of the FDR on maturity after 60 months or on clearance of the entire outstanding. However, the Bank had failed to discharge its duty. The matured amount of the Fixed Deposit was not paid to the Complainant.The Complainant by notice dated 11.09.2009, 12.04.2010 and 19.05.2010 called upon the Bank to pay the maturity amount, however, the Bank did not respond to any of the notices. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum.
The Opposite Party Bank contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version. It was pleaded, inter-alia, that the Complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation being filed after 20 years from the date of maturity of the FDR in question; the FDR was duly pledged in favour of Deputy Assistant Director of Health Services (E & S) Admn., West Bengal as security deposit in respect of contract for supply of medicine against the General Tender Period 1981 to 1983; on payment of all outstanding dues of the Health Services (E & S), Admn., West Bengal, the Complainant did not inform the Bank that the pledge had become null and void; on 23.10.2002, the Deputy Assistant Director of Health Services (E & S) Admn., West Bengal informed the Bank that the amount of Fixed Deposit with interest was to be credited as lapsed security deposit to Head of A/c – “0210-Medical & Public Health” and requested to issue an A/c Pay Cheque in favour of R.B.I. Kolkata so that the amount could be remitted under proper head of account; that the Bank immediately informed the Ld. Receiver appointed by the Ld. Tribunal about the occupation of the business premises of the Complainant by some illegal persons; the original fixed deposit was never lying with the Complainant as it was pleaded with the Department of Health Services; no plausible reason whatsoever has been furnished by the Complainant as to why they remained silent for 21 years about the said FDR and there is no deficiency in service on the their part.
Upon evaluation of the material placed on record by both the parties, the District Forum has come to the conclusion that there was no instruction on behalf of the Complainant to keep the fixed deposit in lien as against any loan of cash credit account and no notice was issued by the Bank to the Complainant prior to locking and/or holding FD account. Consequently, the District Forum allowed the Complaint in above terms. The District Forum held as under:-
“ We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that there is no dispute on record as regards fixed deposit of ₹14,500/- vide receipt No. 7988448 dated 31.03.1983 and it is also seen from the record that there was no instruction on behalf of the Complainant to keep the said FD in lien as against any loan of cash credit account. It is also evidenced from the record that Complainant made payment of ₹13,00,000/- towards full and final payment and we do not find any prior notice issued by the Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant prior to locking and/or holding FD account referred to above and this act on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service to its Consumer/Complainant and Complainant is entitled to relief.”
Aggrieved by the said Order, the Bank preferred an Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the Appeal affirming the Order passed by the District Forum. The State Commission observed as follows:-
“ Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that actually it is a FD dated 31.03.1983 for 5 years, which matured in 1988 of a value of Rs.14500/-. But , the case has been made in 2010. There has been utter lack of application of mind by the Ld. District Forum in making the order. There has been no mention of the points made out in the w.v. of the OP Bank in the impugned order. There have been serious suppression of material facts, limitation, and that factual aspects have been suppressed. The complainant made a letter on 11.11.2009 to the OP for encashment of the FD, which is his first claim and the same is time barred being after expiry of 21 years. So, there is nothing regarding deficiency in service of the OP.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the Complainant has made several representations to the OP and the superior offices for encashment of the FD concerned, but without any reply. The FD is not transferable; it is only pledged and after fulfillment of the pledge, it was appropriate and befitting for the Bank as also its bouden duty to inform its customer, namely, the Complainant regarding the maturity value, which was not intimated at all by the Bank. There has been lack of activity on the part of the Bank as per the guidelines of the RBI in this sphere. The Complainant is the first lien but he has been kept in the dark in the whole matter.
The FD is in the name of the Complainant and after release from the pledge, the matured sum should have been paid to the Complainant. It may be fault on the part of the concerned State Govt. Department, but it is also an equal fault of the Bank concerned not to pay as such, and also not to inform him of the happening in respect of the FD concerned after it was released by the said Government Department. The Complainant wrote letters one after another to the Bank, but it was not replied at all, either in the positive or in the negative, or by stating what happened to it. Accordingly, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Bank to the Complainant. The impugned order is thus a justified one. Appeal is dismissed.”
Hence, the Petitioner Bank is before us by filing the present Revision Petition.
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank at some length. None has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent, however, Written Submissions have been placed on record by him and we have perused the same.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner Bank has vehemently submitted that the FDR in question was duly pledged in favour of Deputy Assistant Director of Health Services (E & W) Admin. West Bengal as security deposit in respect of a contract for supply of medicines against the general tender period 1981 to 1983. The Respondent/Complainant had never intimated to the Bank that all the outstanding dues of the Health Services (E&S) Admin., West Bengal had been cleared by them. On 23.10.2002, the Deputy Assistant Director of Health Services informed the Branch Manager of the Petitioner Bank that the amount of fixed deposit with interest was to be credited as lapsed security deposit to head of A/c “0210-Medical Public Health” and requested him to issue an A/c Payee Cheque in favour of RBI Kolkata so that they can remit the said amount to the proper head of account and the Petitioner took appropriate steps in such regards.
As against this, it is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that the fixed deposit of ₹14,500/- for 60 months was taken on 31.03.1983 and was matured on 30.03.1988 and the maturity amount was ₹29,429/-. The Directorate, Health Department, West Bengal requested the Bank vide letter dated 23.02.2002 to credit the maturity amount with interest with Government since the F.D. was pledged with them. However, the Bank did not comply with the said request. Only on 16.12.2014, the Bank sent a Demand Draft of ₹29429/- dated 16.12.2014 against the said FDR to the Director, Health Services, Government of West Bengal and in turn the Government informed the Complainant about the same vide letter dated 26..12.2014. It is further submitted that the Complainant also wrote a letter dated11.09.2009 to the Bank claiming the maturity amount with interest but Bank did not pay the amount. It is also urged that the concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora below cannot be interfered by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269.
There is no dispute to the fact that the Complainant invested a sum of ₹14,500/- in the FDR with the Petitioner Bank for 60 months. The FDR was obtained on 31.03.1983 and was to be matured on 30.03.1988. The Complainant also obtained the loan in the form of Cash Credit Account from the Petitioner Bank. During the course of time, a dispute arose between the parties regarding loan account and the matter went to the Kolkata Debt Recovery Tribunal. Due to the said proceedings, the entire business premises/Manufacturing Unit of the Complainant and valuable documents including FDR in question were held by the Petitioner Bank. In terms of the Order passed by the Tribunal, the Complainant paid a sum of ₹13,00,000/- to the Petitioner Bank towards full and final settlement of its entire dues. There is a concurrent finding of the facts returned by the Fora below based on the correct appreciation of the evidence available on record that the said FDR was not kept as a Security against the said loan taken by the Complainant from the Petitioner Bank. However, the Petitioner Bank did not pay the maturity amount of the FDR to the Complainant. It is the defence of the Petitioner Bank that the said FDR was pledged with the Director, Health Services, Govt. of West Bengal and on receiving a letter dated 23.02.2002 the appropriate steps were taken by the Bank to reimburse the amount of the FDR to them. On the contrary, it is the submission of the Complainant that though a request from Director, Health Service, Govt. of West Bengal was received by the Petitioner Bank on 23.02.2002, but the maturity amount of the FDR of ₹29,429/- was paid to them only on 26.12.2014 that to after passing of the order by the District Forumon 16.10.2012 directing the Petitioner Bank to pay the maturity amount of the FDR.Even no prior notice was sent to the Complainant before reimbursing the amount to the Director Heath Services, Govt. of West Bengal. In our considered view, the Fora below had considered all the material evidence on record and there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by them. It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India &Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 decided on 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced as under:-
“ It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv ShuklaVs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. &Anr -.(Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 decided on 08.09.2022) while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of Rubi (Chandra) – (Supra) that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-
“ At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.(Emphasis supplied)
For the reasons stated hereinabove, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Impugned Order dated 08.06.2016 passed by the State Commission which is based on proper and correct appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Parties. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.
Vide Order, dated 26.10.2016, while granting the stay of the impugned Order dated 08.06.2016, this Commission has directed the Petitioner Bank to deposit a sum of ₹50,000/- with the State Commission as pre-condition of Stay. If any amount is deposited with the State Commission in compliance with the said Order, we direct the State Commission to release the said amount alongwith accrued interest in favour of the Complainant.