BANOBAI vs Union of India

THIS revision is directed against the order dated 3.6.2005 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal dismissing appeal against the order dated 12.2.2003 of a District Forum whereby complaint was dismissed.

IN brief, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner/complainant along with her son Shabbir Ali purchased a FDR of Rs. 3,40,000 which was to mature on 16.3.1998 from the respondent/O.P.- bank. On amount of FDR not being paid on maturity date, the petitioner alleging deficiency in service filed by a complainant seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the bank. One of the pleas taken was that the FDR in question was pledged with the respondent-bank by way of security for the loan raised by the petitioner''s son- Shabbir Ali and as the loan amount had not been cleared, the maturity amount was not paid and the FDR was renewed for a further period of 10 years. Total amount of loan borrowed by Shabbir Ali was Rs. 3,00,000. Bank alleged that only amount of Rs. 2,00,000 was paid. There was thus dispute regarding the balance payment of amount of Rs. 1,00,000 with interest. Order of State Commission notices that on 12.5.2005, an affidavit was filed by Rathindrakant Chakravarti, Manager of the bank that the FDR earlier renewed for a period of 10 years w.e.f. 16.3.1998, was got transferred by the petitioner and her son to another branch at Siyaganj, Indore on 24.4.2003 and the entire maturity amount of Rs. 8,07,157 has been paid. Order further notices that before making this payment, Shabbir Ali on 26.3.2003 had deposited with the respondent-bank a sum of Rs. 2,62,282 towards the balance amount in the loan account. The State Commission was of the view that with the said payment the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed and appeal was, therefore, dismissed.

It is pointed out by Shri Prakash Verma for the petitioner that after the lifting of endorsement of lien made on the FDR by the bank, the respondent could not have denied payment of the maturity amount and renewed the FDR for a further period of 10 years. Bank was thus deficient in service and the petitioner is, therefore, entitled to compensation on that ground. Admittedly, FDR in question was in the joint names of the petitioner and her son- Shabbir Ali who was not arrayed as a party in the complaint; Shabbir Ali had taken loan of Rs. 3,00,000 from the respondent-bank against the FDR and maturity amount of Rs. 8,07,157 was paid only after Shabbir Ali had paid the balance amount in loan account of Rs. 2,62,282 to the respondent-bank. As may be seen from the written version filed by the bank, it was pleaded that amount of Rs. 1,10,000 was not deposited on 15.1.1997 by Shabbir Ali in the loan account as alleged and was by mistake that endorsement of lifting of lien was made on the FDR by the bank. Said amount of Rs. 2,62,282 included the amount of Rs. 1,10,000 which was alleged to have been paid by Shabbir Ali to the respondent-bank. Payment of said amount in loan account would show that on the date endorsement of lifting of lien was made on the FDR, certain amount was due to the bank from Shabbir Ali. That being the position, the respondent-bank cannot be held to be deficient in service in refusing to make payment of the maturity, amount of FDR. Submission referred to above is repelled being without any merit. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly revision is dismissed. No order as to cost. R.P. dismissed.