MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant in Consumer Complaint No. 947 of 2015 is a statutory authority set up under the Provisions of Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974. The said complainant invited quotations from Banks for investment of the surplus funds to the extent of Rs.800 crores for a period of one year. In response to the said notice, the opposite party namely Dena Bank (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') offered interest @ 9.99% per annum for a Fixed Deposit of Rs. 350 crores for a period of 366 days. Thereupon, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs.350 crores to the bank through RTGS on 19.03.2014. Vide letter dated 19.3.2014, alleged to have been sent by Fax, the bank was requested to issue Term Deposit Received for Rs. 350 crores. On 21.3.2014, an additional sum of Rs.1.50 crores was transferred by the complainant to the Bank through RTGS and the bank was requested to issue the Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of the complainant. The said letter dated 21.3.2014 is also alleged to have been sent by Fax. The bank issued 45 Fixed Deposit Receipts (Annexure P -5 (Colly) to the complaint). The complainant received a letter dated 05.7.2014 from the Sr. Inspector of Police, EOW, Unit -I, CB,CID, Mumbai informing it that a fraud had been committed in respect of its Fixed Deposits with the bank and an amount of Rs.45 crores had been siphoned off. When the complainant contacted the bank to ascertain the status of the said Fixed Deposit Receipts, it was informed that the said Fixed Deposit Receipts were not original. Vide letter dated 10.7.2014, the bank informed the complainant that they had found that an overdraft account had been opened in its name and in the said overdraft account there was an outstanding of Rs.45.23 crores against the fixed deposits. It was further stated in the said letter dated 10.7.2014, that the original Fixed Deposit Receipts duly discharged by the complainant were held by the Branch and the matter of creation of overdraft had been referred to the CBI for investigation. Vide letter dated 15.7.2014, the Bank forwarded the copies of the documents relating to the opening of the overdraft account and grant of the loan against the Fixed Deposit Receipts to the complainant. The complainant reiterated to the bank that it had not applied for grant of any overdraft facility nor had it collected the cheque book from the bank. The bank was also asked to authenticate the Fixed Deposit Receipts which were in the possession of the complainant. The complainant handed over all the 45 Fixed Deposit Receipts of Rs.351.50 crores to the bank, vide letter dated 28.11.2014. On 02.1.2015, the bank informed the complainant that the signature on the said Fixed Deposit Receipts did not match with the signature of the bank officer. On maturity of the Fixed Deposit Receipts, the bank has refused to pay the proceeds to the complainant on the ground that the Fixed Deposit Receipts in the custody of the complainant were forged documents, whereas the bank required genuine Fixed Deposit Receipts issued by it, before it could pay the maturity amount of the Fixed Deposits to the complainant. The bank also sought to adjust from the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits, the amount outstanding in the overdraft account opened in the name of the complainant MMRDA. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The complaint has been resisted by the opposite party, which has taken a preliminary objection that it is not instituted by a competent person. Yet another preliminary objection taken by the opposite party is that since there are allegations of fraud, the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court and a consumer complaint is not an appropriate remedy for the adjudication of such disputes. The bank has also resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer, as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In nut shell, the case of the bank is that the complainant had opened an overdraft account against pledge of the certain fixed deposit receipts as well as a loan account with it, and later, on the instructions of the complainant, the money was transferred to the loan account from where it was transferred to third parties by way of cheques issued to the complainant. According to the bank, fixed deposit receipts were collected, the overdraft account and loan accounts were opened and the cheques whereby money was transferred to third parties were issued, on behalf of the complainant, by the person whom the complainant had authorized to negotiate the fixed deposits and collect the fixed deposit receipts. This is also the case of the bank that the fixed deposit receipts in possession of the complainant are not the genuine receipts issued by it against the fixed deposits.

(3.) The complainant in Consumer Complaint No.259 of 2014 namely Maharashtra Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. invested Rs.1,25,82,82,737/ - with the Bank between January, 2014 to March, 2014 and 20 fixed deposit receipts were issued by the bank against the said deposits. In this case also, the complainant received a letter from the Economic Offences Wing of the Crime Branch, CID, informing it of the fraudulent opening of overdraft account in its name and siphoning off Rs.69.04 crore in the same manner in which money was siphoned off from the account of MMRDA, the complainant in Consumer Complaint No.947 of 2015. It is also stated that CBI has already filed a charge sheet against several persons, including Shri P.V. Nagarkar, the then Senior Manager of the bank, who fraudulently and dishonestly delivered fixed deposit receipts to one Devendra Bhogle against the forged documents.