DEBABRATA MUKHERJEE Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from an order passed by the West Bengal State Commission on 16.2.1998 wherein Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee, (appellant in FA 131/1998) had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Allahabad Bank (appellant in FA 326/1998).

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that in December 1976 a Joint Current ˜Over -Draft A/c was opened by the complainant Mr. Debabrata Mukherjee along with two others with erstwhile United Industrial Bank Ltd. for this Over -Draft Current Account, security was given by way of FD of Rs. 22,000 as also certain shares which included 200 shares of ITC Ltd. in the name of one Ms. Pratima Mukherjee. The said United Industrial Bank was taken over by the Allahabad Bank in 1989. The complainant received a letter showing an outstanding amount of Rs. 45,135 as on 31.10.1989. It is the case of the complainant that this did not reflect the amount of matured FD also interest thereon, etc. There was also a wrong debit of Rs. 1,000 in that account as also to the fact that method of interest calculated was in violation of RBI directives. Complainant brought this to the notice of the Bank but on the other hand, the Bank allegedly threatened the complainant that if the amount is not paid the bank will be obliged to sell the 200 shares of ITC Ltd., pledged by the guarantor Ms. Pratima Mukherjee. It is stated that the said shares were sold on 12.7.1991 for a consideration of Rs. 40,000 and this amount was not shown as ˜credit, in favour of the complainant.

(3.) Basic issue appears to be relating to the amount shown as the outstanding against the complainant as also the status/fate of the 200 ITC shares of Ms. Pratima Mukherjee. This issue was agitated before the High Court. An appeal was also filed by the Bank before a Division Bench, outcome of which was that the Bank was directed to return the shares to the complainant; it also stated that if there is any deficiency on the part of the Bank, complainant can agitate this before a competent Forum. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, through a comprehensive order directed the Bank to refund Rs. 302 shown as excess in favour of the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000. Aggrieved/dissatisfied by this order, these two separate appeals have been filed by both the parties, before us.