STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. B.N.RAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal two questions need our conside -ration " one relates to the question of withdrawal of the Fixed Deposit on 23 -11 -1979 and the other question relates to limitation.

(2.) IN so far as the question of with -drawal of the Fixed Deposit is concerned, the appellant by showing his passport has established that he was not present in India and consequently he could not have received the amount of this Fixed Deposit as alleged by the appellant Bank. No docu -ment has been shown to prove that the amount was paid to any person autho -rized by him. Consequently we do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by the State Commission in this regard.

(3.) AS regards the question of limi -tation, according to the complainant the FCNR account was opened on August 17, 1979 by depositing US $ 5,000/ - for a period of 63 months maturing on 16 -9 -1984. However the FDR was kept with the Bank itself for safe custody. In the year 1984 RBI allowed such deposit to be continued for another 6 years carrying the interest @ 13% p.a. The complainant/respondent accordingly instructed the appellant bank to keep the amount deposited for another 6 years ending on 17 -11 -1990. In Feb. and June 1985 and again in April 1986, he made enquiries from the Bank but failed to elicit reply. In 1986 the complainant went to the office of the appellant and an official of bank assured him that the balance of US$ 7939.56 had been placed in FCNR for a period of 6 years carrying rate of interest @ 13% p.a. In September, 1990, the complainant instructed in writing to keep the entire amount by another 3 years under fixed deposit ending on 17 -11 -1993. The complainant returned on India on 6 -1 -1992. Despite personal visits and requests and letters the complainant was neither given photo -copy of FCNR account nor any document of renewal. Several letters sent did not elicit any desired result excepting that he was informed that as per photocopy of the foreign currency sell/purchase register there was an entry of withdrawal of US$ 5000/ - in the name of respondent. Appellant took up the matter with the RBI and ultimately filed a complaint on 28 -9 -1994. It is evident from the case narrated that the complainant does not claim to have any photocopy of FCNR deposit receipt except that on 17 -8 -1979. He did not produce any letter to indicate that he got it extended. It appears further that in case he made enquiries in Feb. June 1985 and April 1986, neither letter was sent nor any receipt etc. was taken. He claims to have met some official whose name has not been disclosed. He claims to have instructed the bank to keep the entire amount for another 3 years under the fixed deposit but no such letter has been produced on record. The fact that he did not insist to obtain the photocopy of the FNCR showing a balance of Rs. 7,939.56 has been put in FCNR is the matter which needs our serious consideration. On one side there is a presumption of continuity on the other side by conduct the complainant by not insisting to get a copy of the fixed deposit. As aforesaid a big hurdle in his case is he is literate person, who claimed to have deposited an amount in Fixed Deposit; he has not produced any letter indicating confirmation about the further depositing the amount up to 17 -11 -1990. Though the complainant claims that in September 1990 he instructed in writing for extending the period of deposit but no writing has been produced. He again claims to have written a letter with reference to FCNR 17 -8 -1979 for US$ 5000/ -. If some official of the bank has informed him that the balance was of US$ 793.56 in FCNR for a period of 6 years. It may be further mentioned that the notice Annex. I dated 30 -4 -1994 does not refer to sending of any letter for the purpose of renewal. But this by itself would not militate against the presumption of continuity in absence of proof of payment.