STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SAMAR ROY CHOUDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this Revision Petition is to the Order dated 29/05/2014 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in First Appeal No.324/2013, whereby the State Commission while partly allowing the Appeal filed by the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the OP Bank), modified the Order dated 12.02.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24 Parganas, Judges Court, Alipore, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as 'the District Forum') by directing the OP Bank to refund to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 8,22,762.00 with interest @ 9.75% p.a. w.e.f.17-03-2007 till realisation along with compensation of Rs. 30,000.00 and costs of Rs. 10,000.00 with the rider that the said amounts shall be paid by the OP Bank to the Complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order failing which the amounts shall carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of default till realisation.

(2.) Concisely narrated, the facts leading to the filing of the Complaint are that the Complainant and his wife were having two fixed deposits, i.e.,TDcs0495619 and TDcs0495621, both having the date of deposit as 17.03.2007 and date of maturity as 17.03.2011. The Principal amounts invested were Rs. 54,425.00 and Rs. 5,59,668.00 and the maturity amounts were Rs. 81,480.00 and Rs. 8,22,762.00 respectively. The Complainant had taken a demand loan in January, 2009 from the OP Bank by pledging three Fixed Deposit Certificates including the two in question; however, subsequently, the same were returned to the Complainant on repayment of the loan amount. On maturity of the said two Fixed Deposit Certificates on 17.03.2011, when Complainant approached the OP Bank for renewal of the same, the OP Bank did not entertain the same on the plea that the FDRs have become inoperative, without explaining any reasons. Thereafter, the Complainant wrote letter dated 23.05.2011 to the Manager of the OP No.1 Bank apprising him of the incident and requesting him to transfer the maturity amount under the said certificates to the joint account of the Complainant and his wife as they were no more interested in renewal of the said Fixed Deposits. However, the Manager of the OP No.1 Bank gave an evasive and misleading reply to the letter of the Complainant stating that the said two fixed deposit accounts have been closed. Thereafter, the complainant wrote another letter dated 25.06.2011 to the General Manager of OP Bank, (herein after referred to as OP No.2) endorsing copies thereof to the Deputy General Manager of OP Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP No.3) also. The OP No.3 replied the letter of the Complainant and advised him that the Local Head Office, Kolkata of the State Bank of India will advise him in the matter. However, the said office failed to act in terms of the letter written by the OP No.3. The Complainant wrote another letter dated 14.10.2011 to the Chief General Manager of OP Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP No.4) explaining his grievance, but in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties/Petitioners, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum.

(3.) The OP Bank resisted the Complaint by filing their joint written version. It is contended that the Complainant opened fixed deposit account number 30145154500 in respect of receipt No.0495619 dated 17.03.2017 for Rs. 54,425.00 and fixed deposit account number 30145154781 in respect of receipt No.0495621 dated 17.03.2017 for Rs. 5,59,668.00 . That the fixed deposit receipt No.0495619 for Rs. 54,425.00 was closed on 26.03.2011 for Rs. 80,026.00 on maturity and renewed with one STDR for Rs. 80,026.00 with maturity date as 01.10.2012. The FD Receipt No.0495621 was closed prematurely on 07.07.2008 and its proceeds Rs. 6,12,113.00 were credited to the Savings Bank Account No. 10559521717 of the Complainant on 07.07.2008. All other allegations made in the complaint were specifically denied. The Petitioner/OP Bank denied any deficiency in service on their part and prayed dismissal of the complaint with compensation and costs, being not maintainable.