Haryana

Panchkula

CC/264/2019

RAKESH KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK INDIA . - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR

25 Oct 2021

ORDER

Before the District Consumer, Dispute Redressal, commission, Panchkula.

Consumer Complaint No.	:	264 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	06.05.2019
Date of Decision	:	26.10.2021

 

Rakesh Kumar aged about 61 years son of Shri Kasturi Lal, resident of H.No.B-4, Gurkul Colony, Old Panchkula Tehsil and District Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                    …….Complainant

                                                      Versus

1.      State Bank of India Branch, New Mini Secretariat, Sector-1, Panchkula through its Branch Manager.

2.      State Bank of India, Regional Business Officer-1, Sector-5, Panchkula through its Regional Manager.

….. Opposite Parties

Complaint under SecTION 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019  

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

                           Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                           Dr.SushmaGarg, Member.

                          

For the Parties:    Sh. Rajesh Kumar,Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                           Sh. Abhineet Taneja, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order

(SATPAL, president)

 1.              The complainant has filed this complaint with the averments that the complainant was running a book shop in the name of Rakesh Kumar, Book & General Store, Village Kharak Mangoli, Panchkula and also the holder of agency of books(for selling) of Haryana Education Board, Bhiwani Haryana and a licence of the said agency was issued by the Governor of Haryana through the Controller of Printing & Stationery Department Haryana, Chandigarh in 1990 against a security of Rs.500/-. On the demand of the said security amount of Rs.500/- the complainant purchased a Special Term Deposit Receipt(under Re-investment Plan) for a sum of Rs.500/- from the State Bank of Patiala(now merge in State Bank of India) Extension Counter Jatinendra Gurkul Old Panchkula on 06.07.1990 and the concerned bank issued a STDR vide Sr.No.STD/1 567847 in favour of Governor of Haryana through the Controller of Printing and Stationery Department Haryana, Chandigarh Rakesh Kumar c/o Rakesh Book & General Store, village Kharak Mangoli, Old Panchkula for the period of five years i.e. 60 months. The rate of interest is mentioned in it. The above mentioned book’s agency licence was cancelled on 22.07.2009 because the complainant could not continue the said agency due to his family circumstances. During the said period i.e. 06.07.1990 to 22.07.2009, the said STDR was continued with the concerned bank for the said purpose and he did not withdraw the said amount from the bank. Thereafter, the Controller, Printing & Stationary Deptt. Haryana Chandigarh passed an office order to release of said security amount with interest to the complainant- Rakesh Kumar vide order P & SH-2009/606/Cell dated 22.07.2009 and copy of said office order was issued to the Manager, State Bank of Patiala and the complainant. Further, after receiving the said office order for releasing the said STDR, he visited the concerned branch and requested for releasing the said STDR amount along with interest and gave his account no.55116540255 but the official refused to release the said STDR to the complainant and told that there is no record of the said STDR. It is contended that after refusal of official of bank, the complainant wrote a letter to AGM, State Bank of Patiala, Sector-8, Panchkula to sort out the said issue but the concerned bank did not receive the complainant’s letter and above mentioned issue of the complainant still continued. From 22.09.2009 to 15.06.2018, the complainant visited many times to the concerned bank/branches but the due amount was not returned to him and in the mean time the State Bank of Patiala merged in State Bank of India. After merging in SBI, on 15.06.2018 the complainant again wrote a letter to the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, RBO Office, Panchkula to sort out the issue. On 11.12.2018 against letter dated 15.06.2018 the SBI, Regional Business Office-1, Sector-5, Panchkula wrote a letter to the complainant to get the payment of STDR No.567847 for Rs.500/- dated 06.07.1990 from our Mini Secretariat, Sector-2, Panchkula and collect the cheque of Rs.2,084/- from the above branch being the proceeds of STDR with interest on surrender of the original receipt. The said bank accepted the said STDR amount along with interest i.e. 2048/- to release to the complainant but the said amount of Rs.2,084/- was not due accurate amount along with interest and the said STDR amount of Rs.2,084/- was not accepted by the complainant. He has calculated the said STDR amount along with interest from 06.07.1990 to 31.01.2019 as  per rules of the bank on STDR/FDR interest from time to time comes to Rs.5,636/-. On 25.01.2019 the complainant again wrote a letter Regional Manager, SBI and requested many times for releasing the correct due amount of said STDR along with accurate interest upto date which comes Rs.5,636/- instead of Rs.2,084/- but the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant.  Due to the act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered financial loss, mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer; time barred; no cause of action; estoppels; not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts. On merits, OPs No.1 & 2 stated that the security term deposit receipt for the sum of Rs.500/- was issued in favour of Governor of Haryana through the Controller of Printing and Stationary Department, Haryana, Chandigarh for the period of 5 years. It is submitted that amount of Rs.500/- was not deposited by the complainant as routine customer of the bank but the same was deposited as security to the Governor of Haryana through the Controller of Printing and Stationary Department, Haryana, Chandigarh. Thus, the OP bank merely acted as guarantor of the default, if any, to be committed by the complainant towards Governor of Haryana. Further, it is submitted that the OP bank has never refused to pay the maturity amount of STDR to the complainant. It is also stated that after the issuance of STDR in the year 1990, the complainant approached the OP only in the year 2018. After verification of the manual records, the OP bank issued the letter dated 11.12.2018 and requested him to collect the Banker cheque of Rs.2084/- being the proceeds of STDR from the Mini-Secretariat Branch. It is pertinent to mention here that the said amount of Rs.2084/- not only included fixed deposit rate of interest for the period of 60 months but also included upto date saving bank rate of interest. However, the complainant did not come to collect the demand draft from the OP Bank. Consequently, the OP bank sent the demand draft to the complainant by post vide letter dated 25.01.2019. Instead of collecting the demand draft, the complainant started demanding more amount from the OP Bank for which he was not entitled to it. It is further submitted that the limitation period for filing complaint is 2 years as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The said period of 2 years is to be reckoned from the date of cause of action arises.  So, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.               Replication to the written statement of the OPs No.1 & 2 was filed by the complainant reiterating the contents of the complaint while controverting the contentions of the OPs.

4.               The learned counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit as Annexure R-A and closed the evidence.

5.               We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OPs and have gone through the entire record available on the file including written arguments filed by the learned counsels for both the parties, minutely and carefully.

6.               Admittedly, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.500/- as security on 06.07.1990 with State Bank of Patiala (which now stands merged with State bank of India i.e. OP), which had issued the Short Term Deport Receipt (hereinafter referred to as STDR)vide serial no.567847 in favour of Governor of Haryana through the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Department of Haryana, Chandigarh.  As per STDR(Annexure C-1), due date of maturity was 06.07.1995. However, the STDR was neither got renewed by the complainant after 06.07.1995 nor the OP at its level refunded the maturity amount to the complainant. The licence of the complainant, in the name of Rakesh Kumar, Book & General Store, Village Kharak Mangoli, Panchkula was cancelled on 22.07.2009 and thereupon, as per Annexure C-2, the afore-mentioned deposited amount of Rs.500/- as security was ordered to be released in favour of the complainant by the Controller of Printing and Stationery, Department of Haryana Chandigarh. However, the OP has denied the receipt of said order. As the aforesaid maturity amount was lying deposited with the OP, the complainant requested the OP to release the said amount vide his application dated 15.06.2018(Annexure C-5). The OP asked the complainant to collect a cheque of Rs.2,084/-in lieu of the aforementioned deposited amount, but the complainant being not satisfied filed the present complaint claiming a sum of Rs.5,636/- as per Annexure C-7. As per complainant, he is entitled to the rate of interest, which is applicable in the cases of fixed deposit whereas the OP has initially had admittedly the claim of the complainant to the rate of interest, which is applicable in the cases of saving account. During the course of hearing, the OP has expressed its willingness to pay a sum of Rs.5,800/-, which has been calculated at the rate applicable in the matter of fixed deposit.

The complainant now, at this stage, has  claimed that he is also entitled to the compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and accordingly, the bank cheque amounting to Rs.3,716/- was ordered to be returned to the OP vide our order dated 26.11.2019. The complainant has claimed the compensation on account of mental agony and harassment on the ground that the OP had been deficient in rendering the services to him whereas the OP has denied any lapse and deficiency on its part.

7.               The OP has contested the complaint, apart from merits, on preliminary objections. The first objection is that the complainant does not fall under the category of consumer. This objection is rejected being meritless as, admittedly, a sum of Rs.500/- was deposited by the complainant with the OP under the Special Term Deposit Scheme.

The learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance upon judgment dated 14.07.2006 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.2982 of 2006 in case titled as Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. Vs. Dr. B.N.Raman, wherein it is observed that the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,Section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o)-Consumer Service-Banking Services-Activities relating to non-sovereign powers of statutory bodies like Banks are covered under the term of ‘service’ within the purview of the Act-the functions of the Fora under the Act are of quasi judicial nature-The Banks render services to its customers or even non-customers.

Reliance has further been placed upon the judgment/order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition Nos.1575 of 2013 from Order dated 24.01.2013 in First Appeal No.A/730/2007. Hence, revision petition against it-sustainability of-FDR matured on 06.09.2005 whereas  Circular of RBI in question is dated 26.12.2005 through which restrictions had been imposed w.e.f.30.12.2005-Petitioner failed to give any satisfactory reply as to why payment had not been made on maturity-The OPs are under obligating to make payment on maturity-Complainant has no fault-This attributes deficiency on part of petitioner-Impugned order confirmed.

8.               In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the consumer clearly falls under the category of consumer.

9.               The second objection raised by the OP is that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. This objection is also rejected in view of the fact that a sum of Rs.500/- deposited by the complainant vide Annexure C-1 is still lying with the OP and thus, the cause of action is continuing.

10.             Now, adverting to the merits of the case, admittedly, as per the terms and conditions of the STDR dated 06.07.1990, interest was to be cease at the expiration of the due date i.e.06.07.1995. Admittedly, the complainant failed to re-submit the STDR with the OP for its renewal after 06.07.1995 and thus, the complainant was clearly negligent by not getting the STDR renewed. The complainant had furnished no explanation while keeping silence in the matter after 29.09.2009 till 15.06.2018. However, the Controller, printing and stationery Department vide its order dated 22.07.2009 asked the OP(SBOP) to release the maturity amount along with interest. Copy of the said order was duly endorsed by the said department to the complainant. The complainant asked the OP as per Annexure C-4 to deposit the amount with interest up to 28.09.2009 in his saving bank account (Annexure C-4). Although, the OP has denied the receipt of Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-4 but the same carries no force and substance.

11.             In view of the above discussion, we find that it is the case of contributory negligence. Since, the OPs has agreed to pay the interest at the rate which is applicable in the cases of fixed deposit as matter of goodwill gesture; therefore, in our opinion it would serve the ends of the justice if the OPs are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and physical harassment. No litigations charges are payable as the learned counsel has been engaged by DLSA.

12.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OPs shall refund the maturity amount as per Special Term Deposit receipt (Annexure C-1), dated 06.07.1990 bearing No.STD/1 567847.

In addition to above, the OPs are directed to pay the interest on the maturity amount, which is applicable in the cases of fixed deposit w.e.f. 06.07.1995, till its realization.

2. To pay a lump sum amount of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.
3. It is made clear that, in case, the demand draft amounting to Rs.2084/-, allegedly sent by the OPs to the complainant vide letter dated 25.01.2019, through post, has not been got encashed by the complainant, then, he is directed to submit indemnity bond to the bank as per bank norms so that the said demand draft amounting to Rs.2084/- may be cancelled.

13.          The OPs shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OPs. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:26.10.2021

 

      (Dr.Sushma Garg)       (Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini)         (Satpal)

              Member                       Member                   President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                        

                                        Satpal                                                                                         

                                            President