KULWANT SINGH Vs. INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed against the order dated 7th April, 2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, 'the State Commission') in appeal No. 1198 of 2010. The petitioner/complainant has stated that the petitioner is an enlisted contractor. He had been granted a contract by the Irrigation Department of the Madhya Pradesh Government. A dispute arose between the petitioner and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioner moved the matter before arbitration. The same was decided on 19.7.1994 in his favour by the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam (Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal), modified on the basis of application dated 30.8.1984 vide order dated 12.7.1995. The petitioner filed an execution petition before the District Judge, Bhopal for recovery of the decretal amount. In the meanwhile, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed a revision petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The same was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2003. The Hon'ble District Judge, Bhopal had directed the petitioner to furnish bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,37,000. The petitioner who had Fixed Deposits with the respondent No. 3, approached the Bank which furnished the Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 1,37,000 vide deed dated 8.11.1997. The Bank guarantee was valid till 8.5.1998. FDR of the petitioner was being renewed from time-to-time. FDR was renewed on 6.11.1995 for Rs. 1,04,550 vide FDR bearing No. 0305394/RDP/740/95, interest @ 12.5% per annum compounded quarterly. The maturity date was 5.2.1998. The respondents were bound to return the FDR to the petitioner after 5.2.1998. Instead, the respondent withheld it as a surety for the Bank guarantee furnished by it. The respondents had been renewing the FDR on their own without instructions or permission of the petitioner. They had been crediting interest in his account on the basis of simple interest, annually, whereas they were liable to pay interest, compounded, quarterly. The Bank had been calling for the original Bank guarantee before the FDR could be released. The Bank guarantee was in the record of the District Judge, Bhopal. The same could not be delivered to the Bank. Ultimately, the complainant procured the original Bank guarantee from the Court at Bhopal and delivered the same to the respondent No. 3. But instead of returning the FDR, the respondent No. 1 demanded the release order of the Court before any step could be taken to return the FDR. Finally, the petitioner obtained the release order as well.

(2.) The respondents on the other hand has stated as under:

(3.) The petitioner had not invested any money with the respondent and rather he furnished 2 FDRs No. 1012/97 dated 7.11.1997 for Rs. 5,000 and 740/952 dated 6.11.1993 for Rs. 1,04,550 assessed as Rs. 1,32,381 as per present value of that time. There was no condition of interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum compounding quarterly on the said FDRs. The respondent Bank was liable to pay interest on the said amount as per rules.