MALKIAT SINGH BANSAL vs Punjab National Bank

THIS appeal is by the complainant, Malkiat Singh Bansal filed against order of District Forum, Kapurthala dated March 13,1997 dismissing his complaint filed against Punjab National Bank - the opposite party,

THE complainant is Non-Resident Indian settled in UK. He had account with Punjab National Bank, Bombay Branch. On his request, the account was transferred to the branch of the Bank at Phagwara. THE said account stood transferred w.e.f. June 13,1989. THE complainant asked the Bank to issue Fixed Deposit Receipt in the name of Satwant Kaur of the amount transferred, which was issued on May 1,1992 but w.e.f. June 13,1989. THE amount became due on May 13,1992. Sometime in December, 1992, son of the complainant visited Phagwara and on enquiry he came to know that the amount had been withdrawn by someone else. Thus, on April 12, 1993, the complaint was made to the Bank followed by correspondence. It was in October, 1996 that the complainant approached the District Forum with complaint, claiming the amount of the FDR alongwith compensation. Before the District Forum, the Bank broadly admitted the facts as stated above but took up the stand that wrongly the amount was paid to someone else, who was also known as Satwant Kaur, the name as that of wife of the complainant. THE matter was being investigated. Finding no deficiency on the part of the Bank, the complaint was dismissed as in the meantime, the Bank had paid the amount of the FDR alongwith interest at the agreed rate. The foremost question for consideration in the present case is as to whether the complainant is to be compensated for non- availability of the amount of the FDR, which had been wrongly paid to someone else. Answer is obvious and is in the affirmative. If the Bank without verifying the genuineness of the person claiming the amount of the FDR had paid the same, in other words refusal to make payment to the original and genuine person, deficiency in rendering service is writ large.

Having held that there was deficiency on the part of the Bank in not making available the amount of the FDR to the complainant, the further question for consideration is about the compensation to be paid to the complainant on account of harassment or loss suffered. First request for making payment was made by the complainant on July 9,1993 vide letter Annexure R-31. Specifically request was made to make the payment within 21 days. Thus on that day or on the expiry of 21 days therefrom, the complainant is entitled to be compensated. The contention of Counsel for the Bank is that subsequently it was on the application of the complainant, Annexure R-46 that the entire amount alongwith agreed rate of interest was paid. Since the complainant had accepted that amount, he is not entitled to any further relief in this complaint. This contention in the facts of the present case cannot be accepted. Annexure R-46 does not indicate that the complainant had given up his claim on acceptance of the amount of the FDR alongwith agreed rate of interest, which as per this letter amounted to Rs. 2,34,941/- in the shape of FDR for 46 days. Thus, it cannot be said that he has waived his right to claim compensation.

UNDER Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is to be compensated for the loss suffered on account of negligent act of the opposite party. In this respect, there is no specific material produced by the complainant about the actual loss suffered. It is in this view of the matter that compensation on the money value @ 18% p.a. interest would be just and reasonable as has been done by this Commission in several cases, one of them being Oriental Bank of Commerce and Another v. M/s. Bruno Knitwears, I (1998) CPJ 296=1998 (1) CPC 402 It may also be observed that in another case where the complainant had proved actual loss, higher rate of interest was also allowed by this Commission in Punjab National Bank and Another v. Joginder Singh Grewal, 1998 (1) CPC 412. Learned Counsel for the Bank referred to the decision of Delhi State Commission in R.G. Srivastva v. U.C.O. Bank II (1994) CPJ 647=1994 (2) CPC 530 wherein compensation by way of interest was given @ 15% per annum. Since this Commission has taken up the decision that 18% p.a. interest would be just compensation in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. M/s. Bruno Knitwears, (supra), the same view is followed. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is partly allowed with the direction to the Bank - the opposite party to pay the amount of the FDR alongwith agreed rate of interest upto July 31,1993 and after determining the amount to pay compensation @ 18% p.a. interest on that amount from that day till payment. The amount already paid subsequently would be adjusted. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.