AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal arises out of judgement rendered by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) in complaint case no. 01 / 2009. The appellant is the original complainant. He had claimed amount of Rs.37,94,000/- alongwith due interest being accruals of 29 fixed deposit receipts (FDRs). The State Commission, by the impugned judgement and order, partly allowed the complaint to the extent of the recognised amount and further directed the official liquidator of the respondent no. 1 Bank to pay remainder of the amount to the complainant in proportionate to the claim in future as and when recoveries are effected from the defaulters. The appellant was also held entitled to costs of Rs.10,000/-.
THERE is no dispute about the fact that the appellant is a registered firm. The appellant deals with civil contracts and is engaged in executing contractual works of the Government. In order to execute various such works, the appellant was required to furnish FDRs by way of security to the State Government. The appellant had deposited various amounts under the 29 FDRs with respondent no. 1 - Bank . Those FDRs were issued in the name of the appellant - Firm. The construction projects were completed by the appellant - Firm. Those 29 FDRs had been matured and ordinarily the appellant could have been able to get the refund of the deposited amounts alongwith due interests. The respondent no. 1 is a co-operative Bank. THERE were financial bunglings and internal misdeeds which caused liquidation of the respondent no. 1 - Bank . The banking licence of the respondent no. 1 - Bank was revoked by the Reserve Bank of India and as a result thereof an official liquidator came to be appointed by the State Government in accordance with provisions of the relevant Cooperative Societies Act. THERE is no dispute about the fact that the official liquidator has taken charge of the affairs and is managing the transactions of the cooperative bank. The appellant demanded the refund of the deposited amounts on 8.11.2008 after the appointment of the official liquidator. The liquidator, however, paid only Rs.1 lakh to the appellant. The liquidator informed the appellant that the remaining amount will be paid in accordance with the direction of the State Government and in keeping with the disbursement required to be made after effecting recoveries of amounts due to the cooperative bank. The case of the appellant was that the State Government failed to exercise control over the cooperative bank. The audit inspections of the cooperative bank were also not carried out in time. The inaction on part of the State Government gave lee-way to the office bearers of the cooperative bank to misappropriate large amounts. The liquidator failed to forward names of the depositors to the DICGC (Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation) within the stipulated time. The DICGC failed to provide necessary funds to clear the dues of the deposits in time. The RBI also failed to carry out the supervisory work over the transactions of the cooperative bank. The appellant, therefore, alleged that all the four respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the matured FDRs alongwith interest @9% p.a. and the costs.
The Respondent No. 1, Cooperative bank, through the liquidator alleged that due to huge misappropriation of the funds of the bank by the officer bearers, is financial activities were stopped with effect from 2.08.2006. The RBI later on cancelled the banking licence on 26.09.2007 and appointed the liquidator. It was alleged that since the cooperative bank was insured, the proceedings were taken-up to seek funds from the DICGC and thereafter each of the depositors was paid Rs.1 lakh. It is alleged that there was no deficiency in service at the end of the official liquidator.
THE State Government, DICGC and the RBI refuted all the allegations regarding their defaults. It was averred that list of the depositors of the cooperative bank has been duly scrutinised and amount of Rs.14,47,35,781.65ps. is released in favour of the official liquidator for the purpose of disbursement in accordance with the provisions of DICGC Act. Thus, it was contention of the other three respondents that they were not at fault and there was no deficiency in service qua the appellant. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. We have gone through the impugned judgement and the relevant aspects of the matter. There cannot be duality of opinion that if the cooperative bank would not have been gone into liquidation then the appellant was entitled to recover the amounts shown under the 29 FDRs alongwith due interest.
SIMPLE question involved in the appeal is whether the appellant can claim the entire amount out of the amount made available to the liquidator by the DICGC. In this context, section 16(1) of the DICGC Act, 1961 is relevant. Section 16(1) of the DICGC Act, 1961 reads as under:- Where an order for the winding up or liquidation of an insured bank is made, the Corporation shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be liable to pay to every depositor of that bank in accordance with the provisions of section 17 an amount equal to the amount due to him in respect of his deposit in that bank at the time when such order is made: Provided that the liability of the Corporation in respect of an insured bank referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section (13) or clause (a) or clause (b) of section 13C shall be limited to the deposits as on the date of the cancellation of the registration: Provided further that the total amount payable by the Corporation to any one depositor in respect of his deposit in that bank in the same capacity and in the same right shall not exceed one thousand and five hundred rupees. Perusal of section 16(1) would make it amply clear that liability of the corporation could be only to the extent of Rs.1500/- qua a single depositor. The DICGC has already accepted the liability of Rs.1 lakh in accordance with the amendment made w.e.f. 1.5.1993. The liquidator is required to disburse the amount having regard to various other claims. The liquidator cannot shun the other claims by giving preference only to the claim of the appellant. The official liquidator has commenced recovery proceedings against the defaulters and those who have misappropriated the Banks fund. It is obvious that as and when such amounts would be made available to the official liquidator of the cooperative bank, proportionate disbursement of the amounts will have to be effected. There appears no escape from such conclusion. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant invited our attention to Deposit Insurance & Credit Guarantee Corporation Vs. Chandrakant V. Zingade & Ors. [I (2011) CPJ 19 (NC)]. This Commission, in the given case, held that the insurance corporation is under obligation to pay only Rs.1 lakh to the depositors who deposited more than Rs.1 lakh irrespective of amount they have deposited. It is argued by the learned counsel that this liability has to be bifurcated in case of the appellant because his deposits, though were in his name, yet were for furnishing security in respect of different projects and could not be clubbed together. This argument neither stands to reason nor is supported by any provision of the DICGC Act. Consequently, we are not impressed by the said argument and deem it proper to reject the same.
CONSIDERING the relevant aspects of the present matter, we do not find any error committed by the State Commission. The appeal is destitute of substance. However, it is clarified that the proportionate claims of the appellant, which may be considered by the official liquidator, may also be taken into account alongwith accrual of the interest on the deposited amounts, as and when required funds are available for the purpose of disbursement and that the amounts so due may be disbursed within a period of three months after the availability thereof. With this clarification, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.