Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/14/214

BANK OF BARODA - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY K.SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

MS. SARITA JAIN

15 Dec 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                          

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 214 OF 2014

(Arising out of order dated 30.09.2013 passed in C.C.No.188/2013 by District Commission, Morena)

 

BANK OF BARODA,

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

MILL AREA ROAD, MORENA (M.P.)                                                           … APPELLANT.

 

              Versus

 

VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA,

S/O SHRI RAMESHWAR DAYAL SHARMA,

R/O MILL AREA ROAD, DUTTPURA, MOREN (M.P.)                                …. RESPONDENT.  

                     

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                : ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY        :          MEMBER

                                 

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Ms. Sarita Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

 

 O R D E R

(Passed On 15.12.2023)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President: 

 

                  The opposite party/appellant-Bank of Baroda has filed this appeal against the order dated 30.09.2013 passed by the District Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Morena (for short the ‘District Commission’) in C. C. No. 188/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent has been allowed.

2.                Brief facts of the case as narrated by the complainant are that on 04.10.2006 he had deposited Rs.45,408/- in fixed deposit for a period of

-2-

60 months with the opposite party-bank. Interest rate was 8% and on the maturity date 04.10.2011, the maturity amount was Rs.67,447/-. It is submitted that the said FDR was lost and he got issued duplicate FDR as per bank record. Later on 04.10.2011 it was renewed for further period of 12 months with interest rate 9.25% having maturity amount of Rs.73,935/- with maturity date 04.10.2012. It is alleged that on maturity date, when he approached the bank, the bank officials told him to sign and mention savings bank account number at the back side of FDR, so that the maturity amount will be deposited in his savings bank account. When the maturity amount was not deposited in his savings bank account, he approached the bank, the bank officials told him that for want of record, the amount posited in his account. Thereafter he served legal notice to the bank and but he did not receive the maturity amount. Aggrieved complainant alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite party-bank approached the District Commission seeking relief.

3.                The opposite party/appellant-bank neither appear before the District Commission despite notice nor filed reply, therefore the bank was proceeded ex-parte.

4.                The District Commission while allowing the complaint directed the opposite party-bank to pay maturity amount of Rs.73,935/- payable on 04.10.2012 with interest to the complainant within a period of one month.

 

-3-

Compensation of Rs.1,000/- with costs of Rs.500/- is also awarded. Hence this appeal by the opposite party-bank.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant argued that In fact there are two accounts of the same name 1) Joint account of Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Radhacharan Sharma and Radhacharan Sharma having number 26130100000968 with consumer number 019556273 and 2) Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar Dayal Sharma (complainant) having account number 26130100003517 with consumer number 019552265. He argued that joint FDR no.841665 for Rs.45,408/- was prepared on 04.10.2006 having maturity date 04.10.2011 which was further renewed for a period of one year till 04.10.2012 in the name of Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Radhacharan Sharma and Radhacharan Sharma. The complainant not prepared any FDR. In fact, the complainant stating that his FDR was lost, the bank has wrongly issued duplicate FDR to him looking the name of Vijay Kumar Sharma.  

7.                He further argued that when Vijay Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Radhacharan Sharma and Radhacharan Sharma produced the original FDR, the maturity amount was credited to their account no.

 

 

-4-

26130100000968. He argued that when the complainant produced the duplicate FDR, he was denied to make payment as the amount of FDR has

already been paid to the original FDR holder. He argued that since the bank remained ex-parte before the District Commission, therefore, the correct facts could not bring to the notice of the District Commission. He submits that the opposite party/appellant-bank has filed an application IA-1 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with documents stating that the same could not be filed before the District Commission as the bank remained ex-parte before the District Commission. He argued that the aforesaid documents are necessary for just decision of the case and if the documents are not taken on record, the opposite parties would be deprived of an opportunity of a fair trial. He therefore prayed that the application be allowed and the documents be taken on record.

8.                On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant/respondent supporting the impugned order opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the opposite party/appellant-bank. He argued that there was deficiency in service on part of the opposite party bank in not crediting the maturity amount to the complainant’s account.

9.                Having considered the submissions made by parties and having gone through the record and the documents filed along with application IA-

 

-5-

1 by the opposite party-bank, we are of considered view for just and proper decision of the case and for a fair trial, it would be appropriate to allow the documents to be taken on record so that payment with regard to FDR in question can be determined. Accordingly, IA-1 is allowed and the documents are ordered to be taken on record.

10.              In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission for decision afresh after considering the documents so filed.  Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the District Commission for deciding it afresh, in accordance with law. Documents filed by the opposite party/appellant along with IA-1 be sent to the District Commission along with record after retaining the copies in record of appeal.

11.              All the questions involved in the matter are kept open. The complainant is directed to supply copy of complaint along with documents to the opposite party bank and the bank is directed to file reply within stipulated time period. Parties are at liberty to file additional evidence, if any.

12.              The District Commission shall decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission, while deciding the complaint.

-6-

13.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 01.02.2024.

14.              With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.

 

                        (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Acting President                         Member