STATE BANK OF PATIALA Vs. KUSUM KALRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 18.03.2008, passed by the U.T. Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 617/2007, Kusum Kalra versus Branch Manager, State Bank of Patiala, vide which, while allowing the appeal, the order dated 31.07.2007, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - I, Chandigarh, dismissing the complaint in question, was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant/respondent Kusum Kalra deposited a sum of Rs. 70,000/- with the petitioner, State Bank of Patiala Branch Dadu Majra, U.T. Chandigarh as a fixed deposit in the year 2000. The repayment of the FDR was to take place on 17.04.2002. The said FDR was get renewed with Bank and the maturity date was 17.10.2004. The bank issued a fixed deposit receipt bearing no. 496486, undertaking to encash the same on or after 17.10.2004 for a sum of Rs. 81,588/-. The complainant presented the FDR to the bank on 18.11.2004 for encashment, but the petitioner/OP refused to credit the amount in her savings bank account with the same bank, saying that the complainant had stood as a guarantor in the loan account of one Tejinder Kaur and the said loan had become Non-Performing Asset (N.P.A.). The complainant has alleged that she had already made a programme to visit Bombay to purchase an off-set printing machine alongwith her husband and had also booked tickets for the same. However, due to refusal of the bank to en-cash the FDR, she failed to honour her commitment of going to Bombay. The OP vide their letter dated 17.12.2005, sent a banker cheque to her for Rs. 15,657/- as balance proceeds of the FDR, after retaining a sum of Rs. 67,155/- out of the total payable proceeds of Rs. 81,588/-. However, the complainant returned the said cheque, saying that it was illegal and unjustified action on the part of the bank. The complainant then sent a legal notice dated 8.02.2005 to the bank, asking them to make the payment of FDR, but in vain. The complainant then filed the consumer complaint in question before the District Forum. The petitioner/OP filed a reply before the District Forum, saying that the complainant stood guarantor for Tejinder Kaur, who failed to repay the loan amount and hence, the amount was rightly recovered from the complainant after giving due notice to her. There was no deficiency on the part of the OPs and hence the complainant was not entitled for any compensation. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, dismissed the complaint vide their order dated 31.07.2007. An appeal was filed before the State Commission against this order by the complainant and the State Commission vide impugned order dated 18.03.2008, set aside the order of the District Forum and directed the petitioner/OP to credit the amount of FDR in the savings account of the complainant/respondent, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of maturity till payment and also allowed litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. It has been observed by the State Commission in their order as follows:-

(3.) It is against this order that the present revision petition has been made.