Sanjivani Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd vs DHARNIDHAR

THESE two revision petitions, RP No. 1575/2013 and RP No. 1576/2013, have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 24.01.2013 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ''the State Commission '') in FA No. A/730/2007, "Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Dharnidhar " and FA No. A/731/2007, "Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. versus Swati Dharnidhar " vide which, while dismissing these two appeals, the order dated 21.04.2007 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Parbhani in complaint nos. 19/2007 and 20/2007, allowing the said complaints was upheld.

THE facts in brief, giving rise to these revision petitions are that the complainants who are husband & wife had kept as fixed deposit a sum of Rs.45,000/- each, total Rs.90,000/- for 27 months with the petitioner bank. The other two petitioners are the Chairman and the Manager of the Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank, whereas petitioner no. 4 Vaidyanath Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. is another bank with which the Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank happened to merge later on. The said fixed deposit matured on 06.09.2005 at the expiry of 27 months, but the maturity amount was not paid to them by the OP Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank; hence they alleged deficiency in service on their part. The OP Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank maintained that the said payment was not made because of some restriction on transactions imposed upon them through some circular of the Reserve Bank of India (for short, ''RBI '') issued on 26.12.2005. The District Forum after considering the evidence produced by the parties directed vide their order dated 21.04.2007 that a sum of Rs.45,000/- should be paid to the complainants in each case along with an interest @12% p.a. within three months form the knowledge of the order, otherwise, the complainant shall be entitled to interest @15% p.a. It was also ordered that the OPs should pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation within one month from the date of the said order. Appeals were preferred by the OPs against this order of the District Forum, but vide impugned order dated 24.01.2013, the State Commission dismissed the appeals and upheld the order of the District Forum. It is against this order that the present revision petitions have been made.

AT the time of hearing before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the circular dated 26.12.2005 issued by the RBI saying that the RBI had imposed restrictions upon them from discharging their liabilities and obligations except with the prior approval of the RBI. The maturity amount of FDR could, therefore, be not paid to them. However, when asked to explain that the said FDRs had matured on 06.09.2005, whereas the circular of the RBI in question is dated 26.12.2005 through which restrictions had been imposed w.e.f. 30.12.2005, the learned counsel for the petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply, as to why the payment had not been made by the petitioners on maturity of the FDRs. He simply stated that the financial health of the bank did not permit them to make such payments. The learned counsel further stated that the Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank had already merged with petitioner no. 4, Vaidyanath Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. on 20.10.2008. The learned counsel also stated that the complainants had previously filed a joint complaint on this issue which was ordered to be dismissed on 16.05.2006. The filing of the second complaint by the complainants was hit by the principle of res judicata and hence the present complaints were not maintainable.

THE learned counsel for the respondent stated that the complainants had made several attempts to get their money back on maturity of the fixed deposits, but the bank had not made payment to them. An examination of the facts on record indicates that the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.45,000/- each, with the petitioner/ OP Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank in June 2003 for a period of 27 months. It has been admitted by OPs that the said fixed deposit matured on 06.09.2005. It was the duty of the petitioner Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank to make the payment of the maturity amount to the complainants at that stage. The petitioners cannot take shelter under the circular issued by the RBI on 26.12.2005, according to which restrictions were imposed on Sanjivani Urban Cooperative Bank upon transactions on various counts, without the prior approval of the RBI. In the instant case, the FDRs matured much before the said restrictions were issued and hence the OPs were duty bound to make payment to the depositers even if the financial position did not permit them to make such payment. In this way, the fault does not lie with the complainant in any manner. The OPs are under obligation to make payment on maturity and there is a clear-cut deficiency in service on their part, because they failed to make payment to the complainant on maturity of the fixed deposit. Even after the issuance of the RBI circular, it was their duty to make reference to the RBI for getting the requisite approval and then make payments to the complainants.

THE arguments raised by the petitioners about the applicability of the principle of res judicata is also without any force, because the complainants had earlier filed a joint complaint and were asked to file separate complaints vide orders of the District Forum issued on 16.5.2006.

IN view of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioners failed in their duty to disburse the maturity amount to the complainants without any justifiable reason. The directions of the RBI came much later and hence the petitioners could not take shelter under the said directions. The present revision petitions are therefore ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum are upheld with no order as to costs.