STATE BANK OF INDIA vs R C Srivastava

THE complainant Sh. R. C. Srivastava and his wife Smt. Santosh Srivastava deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh with the petitioner, State Bank of India by way of an FDR on 02.02.2002, for a period of three years. The case of the complainant is that when they approached the Bank, on maturity of the FDR, for making payment to them, they were informed that the said FDR was not transferrable. The complainant thereupon sent a legal notice to the petitioner Bank through their counsel Mr. Pradeep Verma. In the reply sent by the Bank to the aforesaid legal notice, it was claimed that the complainant had taken a loan against the aforesaid FDR and when the FDR matured, the balance was credited to the saving bank account of the complainants.

BEING aggrieved from the stand taken by the Bank, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking payment of Rs. 1 lakh with interest besides compensation and costs of litigation.

THE complaint was opposed by the petitioner Bank on the same ground on which it had responded to the legal notice. It was stated in the reply that on 02.12.2002, complainant no. 1 had taken a loan of Rs. 75,000/ - from the Bank against the aforesaid FDR and the amount of the loan was duly credited to his saving bank account no. 01190045166. Thereafter, complainant made withdrawals of the said amount from his saving bank account. It was further alleged in the reply that on 03.12.2002, the complainants directed the Bank to close another loan account of Rs. 50,000/ - after debiting the outstanding in the said loan account in his saving bank account and acting on the said instructions, a sum of Rs. 51,876/ - was transferred from the saving bank account to the loan account no. 01590127318. It was further alleged in the reply that the concerned manager of the Bank being friendly with the complainant, Sh. R. C. Srivastava, complete papers relating to the aforesaid transfers could not be located by the Bank. On maturity of the FDR, the balance amount was credited to the saving bank accounts of the complainants. It would thus be seen that only disputed question of fact in this case is as to whether the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 75,000/ - from the Bank against the FDR of Rs. 1 lakh or not. The learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has drawn our attention to the statement pertaining to account no. 01590/127314/00 in the name of complainant no. 1, Mr. R. C. Srivastava. The aforesaid statement would show that on 02.12.2002 a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - was credited in the aforesaid account of the complainant and on the same day, the said amount was transferred to account no. 01190045166, which was the saving bank account of both the complainants. We have also examined the statement filed by the petitioner Bank in respect of the account no. 01190/045166, which was the saving bank account of both the complainants. The aforesaid account would show that a sum of Rs. 75,000/ - was credited in that account from account no. 01590/127314/00 on 02.12.2002 and at that time previous balance in his account was only Rs. 1211.53/ -. On credit of Rs. 75,000/ - in the said account the account holder withdrew a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - on 03.12.2002 by way of a cash withdrawal. The aforesaid cash withdrawal made on 03.12.2002, clearly shows that the complainants were aware of the credit of Rs. 75,000/ - in their bank accounts on 02.12.2002. Since their previous balance in the account was only Rs.1211.53/ -, they could not otherwise have withdrawn Rs. 8,000/ - from that account. Thereafter, a sum of Rs. 51,876/ - was debited by the Bank by transferring the said amount in the account no. 01590127318, which was the previous loan account of the complainant no. 1, in which he had taken loan of Rs. 50,000/ - from the Bank. At no stage, the complainants protested against the transfer of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 51,876/ -from their saving bank account to the loan account no. 01590127318. Not only that the complainant made further withdrawals out of the amount of Rs. 75,000/ -, which was deposited in their saving bank account on 02.12.2002. A sum of Rs. 8,000/ - was withdrawn by them on 16.12.2002 by way of a cash withdrawal, followed by three debits of Rs. 2,375/ - each on the same date. There was yet another debit of Rs. 1427/ - on 20.12.2002 followed by cash withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/ - on 26.12.2002 and cash withdrawal of Rs. 2,000/ - on 02.01.2003. The above transactions leave no doubt at all in our mind that the complainants had taken overdraft of Rs. 75,000/ - from the petitioner Bank and the amount of the said overdraft was credited in the saving bank account on 02.12.2002. This is not the case of the complainant that though they had taken overdraft of Rs. 75,000/ - from the Bank, that was done independently of the FDR which they had taken from the Bank, their case being that they did not at all take an overdraft facility of Rs. 75,000/ - from the petitioner Bank. However, the entries made in their saving bank account, as discussed hereinabove, clearly show that the stand taken by the complainant in this regard is a false stand. The aforesaid statement filed by the petitioner Bank would also show that on 12.03.2005, the balance amount of Rs. 27,038.82 was also credited in the aforesaid saving bank account from the FDR account. At that time, the previous balance in the saving bank account was Rs. 2,061.01/ -. Thereafter the complainant made withdrawal Rs. 1,696/ - on 28.03.2005, followed by cash withdrawal of Rs. 10,000/ - on 05.05.2005. The complainant also issued a cheque of Rs. 6,337.00 on 27.05.2005 followed by a cheque of Rs. 8,000/ - on 13.06.2005/ -. The aforesaid withdrawals also show that the complainants were all along aware of the fact that the Bank had credited initially an amount of Rs. 75,000/ - and later on the balance amount of Rs. 27,038.82 to their saving bank account after making adjustment for the overdraft facility enjoyed by them.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that there was no deficiency on the part of the petitioner Bank in rendering services to the complainants and the claim made by the complainants were absolutely false to our knowledge. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the complaint is hereby dismissed.