BANK OF BARODA Vs. MS SHIKHA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order will govern the disposal of R.P. Nos. 626 of 1999, 627 of 1999 and 628 of 1999 which arise out of identical orders dated 21.12.1998 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh dismissing Appeal Nos. 215/1998 to 219/1998 against similar orders dated 13.2.1998 of a District Forum. In terms of the orders dated 13.2.1998, the District Forum had allowed five Complaint Case Nos. 422/96, 423/96, 425/96 and 426/96 and directed the petitioner/opposite party Bank to pay the maturity amounts of the FDRs with interest and compensation of Rs. 5,000 for mental agony and harassment. Petitioners have now filed revision petitions against the orders of dismissal of appeals arising out of Complaint Case Nos. 422/96 and 426/96.

(2.) Since facts giving rise to these revision petitions are similar, only the facts of R.P. No. 626 of 1999 are being set out here. Respondent opened a saving bank account 398 with the branch of petitioner at Faridabad on 6.3.1998. From the amount lying in that account, the respondent purchased FDR of Rs. 1,11,084.35 on 4.7.1991. Maturity value of deposit on 4.1.1997 was Rs. 2,21,512.55. It was alleged that petitioner issued certificates dated 28.4.1994 and 15.5.1995 indicating the amounts of interest which had accrued on said deposit. It was stated that as the mother of respondent was hospitalised in AIIMS, New Delhi in April, 1996, the family needed money for her treatment. Thus, the respondent accompanied by her father visited the petitioner-bank for encashment of fixed deposit but she was advised to contact again after sometime. When contacted again through the letter dated 31.5.1996 (received by the petitioner on 4.6.1996), the respondent was told to wait for four weeks more. Respondent thereafter got a legal notice served on the petitioner on 7.6.1996 calling upon it to pay the amount of fixed deposit with interest. On amount not being paid, the respondent filed complaint which was contested by the petitioner. Though it was admitted that FDR in question was issued in the name of respondent on 4.7.1991 but it was alleged that the same was bogus. Earlier FDR dated 26.3.1990 on the basis whereof FDR in question was issued was pledged in current account of one Ramavtar Agarwal since 10.3.1990 and the pledged FDR was renewed on 28.9.1993. Liability to pay the amount claimed was emphatically denied.

(3.) On appreciation of evidence, the District Forum returned the finding that the papers regarding alleged pledge were missing from the bank; FDR in question was signed by Ajay Kumar Gupta, the then manager and he along with other officials of the bank had mis-appropriated large amounts from the bank for which two FIRs have been registered and said Manager is facing trial. Accordingly, award was made for return of the maturity amount with interest. State Commission dismissed the appeal filed against District Forum's order. During the course of argument, it was pointed out that awarded amount in all cases have been realised by the respondent from the petitioner-bank. Having heard parties' Counsel, I do not find any illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petitions are, therefore, dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Revision Petitions dismissed.