DEV DUTT DHIMAN Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dev Dutt Dhiman and M. R. Dhiman, Non Resident Indians claimed Rs.7,64,651/- as compensation against the opposite party. State Bank of India for deficiency in rendering service in not making payment of Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR) on its maturity on March 22,1994. The principal amount of maturity was paid on 21.2.1995. The complainants claimed interest @ 18% p. a. with quarterly rests on the total amount claimed as referred to above. STOR No.4072 dated March 27, 1991 for 50310 with 13% p. a. interest was issued on March 22,1991. On maturity, the amount payable was 73927.51 as on March 22,1994. The same was in the names of the two complainants. In December, 1993 i. e. about three months prior to its maturity, one of the complainants, Dev Dutt Dhiman, visited Sangrur in connection with the purchase of a plot. He called upon the opposite party in December, 1993 and informed them about the encashment of the STDR on its maturity and to transfer the amount to Sangrur for crediting in his account with Punjab National Bank. The opposite party assured the needful to be done. A letter of request was addressed to the opposite party containing endorsement thereon to Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sangrur alongwith duly signed discharged STDR. On the day of the maturity of the Receipt i. e. March 22, 1994, Inderjit Dhiman, attorney of one of the complainants personally carried the STDR and presented the same to the opposite party through Punjab National Bank, Phillaur for payment. The opposite party declined to make the payment. Asserting that it did not have the specimen signatures of Dev Dutt Dhiman. Thus, such attested signatures were obtained at great expenses and presented to the opposite party on March 29, 1994. The opposite party did not make the payment and insisted that separate signatures be furnished to them on a new Account Opening Form. Such blank Account Opening Forms were handed over to the officers of the Punjab National Bank and Inderjit Dhiman. The fact remains that payment was not made on that day. Again after incurring heavy expenses, such a form was furnished to the opposite party on April 22,1994 when they were informed that the original receipt had been renewed retrospectively for three years. This was done by the opposite party without any authorization or consent of the complainants and was contrary to the instructions for encashment of STDR as already referred to above. This was all done to harass the complainants and to delay the payment of STDR. When the new STDR signed across the revenue stamp was again presented to the opposite party on June 10,1994, the payment was not released. A plea was taken that depositor's separate discharge other than on revenue stamp on the back of STDR was required. Thereafter, correspondence went on, between the opposite party and the complainants through Punjab National Bank that the opposite party finally made the payment of the principal amount as calculated as per exchange rates on 21.2.1995. The opposite party did not pay interest for the period in-between.

(2.) On notice of the complaint, the opposite party contested the same inter alia asserting that the complainant had taken up the matter before the Banking ombudsman under a Scheme framed under Sec.35a of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949. The award was made directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.45000/- towards interest on delayed payment of STDR. The complaint was thus not maintainable and was filed for extraneous reasons. On merits/broad facts as briefly stated above were not disputed. However, it was insisted that for valid reasons, payment was not made as referred to in the memos. The liability to pay interest was disputed. After renewal of the receipt was in accordance with the instructions of Reserve Bank of India and the payment of such receipt before the minimum period prescribed did not entitle payment of interest. It was asserted that on account of rising in the rates of Pounds Sterling, an excess amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid on February 21, 1995. Both the parties produced affidavits and documents in support of their case. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties.

(3.) The first question for consideration is about the fact of the complainant approaching the Banking ombudsman and award made by it. The contention of learned Counsel for the opposite party is that after the complainant had approached the authority under the Banking Regular Act, the present complaint is not maintainable. This contention has no merit. The relief envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act is not a substitute for other remedies available to the complainants. It is an additional remedy and the choice is with the complainants to seek this remedy or the other i. e. civil suit. As far as the decision of complaints by the Banking ombudsman is concerned, it has not been pointed out that such a decision can be got implemented if the parties refused to comply. In other words, there is not legal sanction for such a decision. It is only recommendatory in nature and thus cannot be a bar for approaching the authorities under the Consumer Protection Act for the relief.