1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the “Act”) against Order dated 20.07.2018, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan (for short ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 39/2018 wherein the State Commission dismissed the Appeal and upheld District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sikar (‘District Forum’) order dated 31.10.2017 in CC No. 08/2012.

2.      For the convenience, the parties are referred to as placed in the original Complaint filed before the District Forum.

3.      Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that he deposited Rs. 6367.50 and Rs. 42,000 under Term Deposit Receipt Nos. 854076 and 854077, which were to be repaid at an interest rate of 11% p.a. These term deposit receipts were issued for 5 years with the OP Bank. Upon later contacting bank officials, the complainant was informed that the OP Bank would renew the deposits periodically on its own, at the applicable rate of interest, with new term deposit receipts to be issued. Few years ago, he required funds to purchase a shop and he approached the OP Bank for withdrawal from the term deposits. However, he was informed by the OP Bank that the relevant records were unavailable. When the Complainant inquired again, he was again informed that the receipts were too old and that the matter was under investigation. Consequently, he had to arrange funds from other sources for purchase of the shop. He alleged deficiency in service by OP Bank for non-payment of the term deposits and sought the same with interest and compensation for anguish and costs.

4.      In its written statement, the OP contended that on 21.11.1985, it had received funds under Term Deposit Receipt Nos. 854076 and 854077 from Sikander Ali. However, they were not accompanied by a renewal request, consequently, the term deposit receipts could not have been renewed. The complainant neither visited the OP Bank for renewal nor produced the original term deposit receipts or submitted a renewal application. Further, in response to a petition filed by him, the Banking Lokpal, vide order dated 10.12.2010, had directed the OP Bank to pay him interest at the savings account rate on the maturity amount for delay in payment. The OP Bank was instructed to calculate the interest accordingly and remit the payment. In compliance with this order, a letter dated 03.01.2011 had been issued to the complainant, requesting him to collect payment as per the Lokpal's order; however, he did not appear to receive the payment. Thus, there was no deficiency in service, as it was ready to comply with the Lokpal's order, and the Complainant's failure to comply rendered the present complaint liable to be dismissed.

5.    The learned District Forum vide Order dated 31.10.2017, allowed the complaint with the following order:

“ORDER

As a result the complaint filed by the complainant, against non-applicant bank is admitted and accordingly non-applicant bank is directed to pay principal and interest on term deposit receipts nos. 854076 and 854077 as applicable from time to time, within one month from receipt of original term deposit receipts. Complainant is directed to submit these -2- term deposit receipts within one month from date of this order, with the non-applicant bank. Non applicant bank is to pay Rs 3000.00 to the complainant towards mental agony and litigation expenses.”

6.      Being aggrieved, the OP filed FA No. 39/2018 and the State Commission vide Order dated 20.07.2018 dismissed the Appeal and upheld the District Forum order, with the following observations: -

“Respondent Sikander Ali made -2- FDs for fixed term and thereafter when respondent requested for release of maturity amount of FDRs, he was compelled to make circles of the Bank and then the bank refused to give him interest on the amount which remained in the bank for long period. When this matter was referred to Lokpal, then it directed the bank to pay interest at the rate of savings bank rate of interest. Since the deposit of the respondent is FD, on maturity, even if the respondent does not turn up, a notice should have been issued to him by the Bank or the bank should have sent the draft of matured amount by registered post, to the respondent. This is not done by the bank. Respondent want interest rate as applicable on FD, which is justified. The circular which is produced during the arguments, is not applicable in the instant case because presents are the times of automatic renewal which is done through computers.

The order passed by Ld district forum does not suffer from any irregularity and the present appeal is liable to be rejected and has rejected.”

7.      Dissatisfied by the Order of the State Commission, OP filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:

A.  Admit and allow this appeal.

B. Set aside/ quash) impugned order dated 20.07.2018 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur in First Appeal no 39/ 2018 titled as Bank of Baroda &Anr
vs Sikander Ali (deceased through LRs); and ii) order dated
31.10.2017 of District Consumer Disputes redressal Forum,
Sikar, Rajasthan in Complaint no. 08/ 2012 Sikander Ali
(deceased through LRs) vs Bank of Baroda &Anr.

C.  Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
interest of justice, in favour of the appellant and against the respondent.”

8.      The learned counsel for OP argued that the complainant had first approached the Banking Ombudsman on 26.08.2010, seeking interest on his term deposits, which had matured in 1995 and remained uncollected since then. The Complainant should not benefit from his own inaction at the expense of public funds. It is established that there was no provision for auto-renewal of term deposits at the time of the complainant’s maturity date, and he provided no evidence to the contrary. Further, till date he had not submitted the original term deposit receipts to the Bank, which was a prerequisite for the release of funds. Since such receipts could be encumbered to third parties, the Bank could not release the funds without verifying ownership and confirming there were no encumbrances. He pointed out that the Banking Ombudsman had nevertheless directed OPs to pay savings bank interest, which the Bank had accepted in good faith, even though he was not entitled to any interest for 15-year delay attributable to his own conduct. As a public sector bank, the OP was required to follow Reserve Bank of India regulations on interest for term deposits. Since FD interest rates depended on the Bank’s current rates, and because any non-renewal was not the Bank’s fault, the complainant could not demand extra relief at the expense of public funds. Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission made a specific finding based on the record that the Bank had any obligation to auto-renew in the 1990s. Without such evidence, the Bank could not be held liable for interest on an account that the Complainant had neglected for nearly 20 years, from 1990 to 2010. Therefore, the OP has no liability for interest accrued to him.

9.    The learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the facts set forth in the complaint and contended that the FDR deposits were undisputed. In the year 2010, the OP informed the complainant that only the savings interest rate would be applied to the maturity amount, further, the OP bank neither responded to the RTI request dated 26.04.2011 regarding FDR renewal policies, nor to the legal notice dated 23.09.2011 sent on the complainant’s behalf. He referred to the concurrent findings of the lower fora and maintained that the District Forum and the State Commission ruled similarly, finding no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice in the impugned order and that the OP could not benefit from its own misconduct. The Revision Court did not sit in appeal and should not interfere unless a serious miscarriage of justice or jurisdictional error was evident. Accordingly, he prayed that the orders of the District Forum and State Commission be upheld, and the Revision Petition, be dismissed.

10.    It is undisputed that on 21.11.1985, two Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) were issued to the complainant, bearing Nos. 854076 for Rs. 6,367.50/- at an interest rate of 10%, and 854077 for Rs. 42,000/- at an interest rate of 11%, both for a term of five years. The complainant contended that, at the time of deposit, the bank assured him that upon maturity, the FDRs would be automatically renewed at the prevailing FD interest rates if the maturity proceeds were not claimed. Relying on this, he wanted a partial withdrawal of the maturity amount in 2009 for purchasing a shop. It is the contention of the complainant that the OP Bank repeatedly stated that the records relating to the FDRs were old and untraceable. Despite multiple follow-ups, the maturity amounts were not disbursed, compelling him to secure funds elsewhere, thereby alleging deficiency in service by the OP Bank. The OP Bank asserted that the bank was under no obligation to auto-renew the FDRs in the 1990s, as such a facility was not available at that time. However, the bank was under an obligation to inform him of the subsequent changes in banking policies. Further, when the matter was referred to the Banking Ombudsman, the bank was directed to pay interest at the savings bank rate, which the OP Bank accepted. In this context, as rightly observed by the State Commission, even if the complainant failed to claim the maturity amount, the OP Bank should have sent a demand draft for the matured amount by registered post to the complainant. Or remitted in his SB account. The contention of the OP Bank that term deposit receipts could be encumbered to third parties, necessitating verification of ownership before releasing funds has already been considered by lower Fora in the respective orders.

11.    It is well settled position in law that revision under Section 21(b) of the Act, 1986 confers very limited jurisdiction on this Commission. In the present case there are concurrent findings of the facts and scope for revisional jurisdiction is limited. On due consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction. I rely upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Anr., Civil Appeal No. 432 of 2022, dated 21.01.2022, wherein it was held that the revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission is extremely limited: -

"9. 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. .....”

12.    Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. (2022) 9 SCC 31, dated 08.09.2022, held that:-

“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.”

13.    In Narendran Sons v National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1760 dated 07.03.2022, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held:

 "The NCDRC could interfere with the order of the State Commission if it finds that the State Commission exercised jurisdiction has not vested in it by law or has failed to exercise its jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. However, the order of NCDRC does not show that any of the parameters contemplated under Section 21 of the Act were satisfied by NCDRC to exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The NCDRC has exercised a jurisdiction examining the question of fact again as a court of appeal, which was not the jurisdiction vested in it"

14.    Considering the above discussion, it is evident that both the impugned order of the State Commission dated 20.07.2018 in Appeal No. 39/2018 and the order dated 31.10.2017 passed by the District Forum in CC No. 08/2012 do not suffer any illegality, or material irregularity or jurisdictional error which calls for any interference of this Commission, and the same are affirmed.

15.    Therefore, Revision Petition No. 2914 of 2018 is dismissed.

16.    Considering the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

17.    Pending applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.