NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

REVISION PETITION No. 989 OF 2006

(From the Order dated 13th March 2006 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 204 of 2005)

 

Major Sarjit Singh Johal (Retd.)                                                                  Petitioner

 

versus

 

Chairman, Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) Ltd                     Respondent

 

BEFORE

 

            MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, PRESIDING MEMBER

            MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

 

For the Petitioner                                                                                          In person

 

For the Respondent                                                                                      NEMO

 

12th February 2008

ORDER

 

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

 

This revision petition impugns the order dated 13.03.2006 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh (‘the UT Commission’, in short) in first appeal no. 204 of 2005. By this order, the UT Commission endorsed the order dated 05.10.2005 of the District Forum (II), Chandigarh in the petitioner’s complaint case no. 298 of 2005 and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner (hereafter, ‘the complainant’). Aggrieved, the complainant has filed this revision petition.

 

2.         We have heard the complainant in person and considered the documents filed by him as well as the reply affidavit dated 05.04.2007 of the respondent Bank (IDBI, in short), though none appeared before us on behalf of the IDBI.

 

3.         The complainant’s case before both the lower Fora has been that (in addition to some more amounts in his own and his wife’s names) he deposited Rs. 50,000/- by cheque no. 71118 of 07.08.2002, drawn on his account with the State Bank of Hyderabad, Chandigarh (SBH, in short) with the IDBI, Chandigarh on 07.08.2002 towards a fixed deposit (FD) in his own name under the IDBI’s Suvidha Fixed Deposits scheme. He was issued acknowledgement of receipt on his application no. 706652 dated 07.08.200 for the said amount, which was followed by his receiving the original FD receipt (FDR) no. 32/2/000331 bearing the same date. He had opted for receiving quarterly interest @ 10% on the FD. He received interest payments of Rs. 10,750/- up to the quarter ending September 2004 and also two interest warrants for the quarters ending December 2004 and March 2005. On 11.10.2004 the IDBI, however, wrote to him stating that the SBH had returned the cheque (no. 71118 of 07.08.2002 that he had deposited for the above-mentioned FDR) with the remark, “Payment stopped by drawer” and, therefore, he should ‘return the original FDR along with a cheque of Rs. 10,750/- and also the remaining Interest Warrants with MICR no. 1477 and 1478.’ In the ensuing correspondence between the complainant and the IDBI each party held to their respective positions, leading finally to the IDBI cancelling the original FDR and the unpaid interest warrants. This, according to the complainant, forced him to approach the District Forum, with the result already noted.

 

4.         Before both the lower Fora, the complainant contended that (i) as soon as he came to know about cheque no. 71118 dated 07.08.2002 being returned by the SBH on account of insufficient funds he deposited Rs. 50,000/- in cash with the IDBI for the aforesaid FD, (ii) he had drawn this cash against cheque no. 71117 dated 13.07.2002 for Rs. 50,000/- from the same SBH account and retained the sum with him since then with the aim of making fresh investment and (iii) the IDBI had retained the application form for deposit of Rs. 50,000/- with its office and processed it for issuing the FDR when he made the payment of that sum in cash. The lower Fora rejected these contentions on the ground that according to the SBH bank statement dated 08.10.2002 produced by the complainant himself, the said cheque no. 71117 of 13.07.2007 for Rs. 50,000/- was shown to have been debited to the complainant’s account by ‘clearing’, meaning thereby that the complainant could not have drawn Rs. 50,000/- in cash against that cheque and that the complainant had not been able to adduce any other evidence to prove that he had actually paid the sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the IDBI, Chandigarh on 07.08.2002 by any mode, in cash or by another cheque.

 

5.         Before us, however, the complainant has taken a significantly different stand. He now contends that (i) the cheque no. 71118 was dated 12.07.2002 (and not 07.08.2002), and was drawn in favour of ‘self’ on his account with the State Bank of Patiala (SBP, in short) and not in favour of the IDBI, (ii) the said cheque was ‘not in existence’ on 07.08.2002 when money was paid along with his application form no. 706652 to the IDBI for the Suvidha FDR, (iii) the acknowledgement dated 07.08.2002 issued by the IDBI on his application no. 706652 dated 07.08.2002 for the said FDR was wrong and had been cancelled / scored out by the IDBI official himself after accepting it, as was evident from the cross mark across the said acknowledgement, and (iv) he had asked the SBH to stop payment of cheque no. 71118 dated 12.07.2002 by his letter dated 12.07.2002 which was accepted to be true by the SBH by its marginal endorsements dated 18.02.2006 on his (complainant’s) letter 15.02.2006 to the SBH.

 

6.         The IDBI has, in its affidavit by way of reply to this revision petition, vehemently denied each of these new (as well as earlier) contentions of the complainant and pressed for putting him to strict proof of these claims.

7 (a)    We find that the complainant had admittedly written to the IDBI, Chandigarh urging the Bank to have the matter investigated by the Police and also written to the Chairman, IDBI to institute a vigilance enquiry. Nothing could have prevented the complainant (now a lawyer by profession claiming to be practising before superior courts) to lodge a Police complaint himself if he was really so sure of his case. Instead, he chose to approach the Consumer Fora. In doing so he clearly averred in his complaint before the District Forum that “on 7-8-2002” he “deposited crossed cheque no. 71118 of date in favour of IDBI Bank Branch Chandigarh for Rs. 50,000/- only drawn on State Bank of Hyderabad.” He went on to aver, “… on knowing that cheque no. 71118 dt 7-8-2002 issued to IDBI has bounced back due to no funds, I made the payment of Rs. 50,000/- in cash that I had withdrawn from State Bank of Hyderabad vide cheque no. 71117 on 13-7-2002 and was keeping for investment.” (emphasis supplied). It is also worth noting that if according to his latest version, the SBH made written endorsements on 18.02.2006 on his letter of 15.02.2006, which were apparently contradictory to the letter dated 08.12.2004 that the SBH wrote to the IDBI in respect of cheque no. 71118 and was produced before the lower Fora, it was open to him to press for examining the SBH officials concerned before this Commission. He did not choose to do so. Nor did he seek to examine before the District Forum the IDBI official who accepted the alleged cash payment for the said FDR. At no stage in the complaint memo or even the appeal memo did he disclose the date on which he learnt about the cheque no. 71118 dated 07.08.2002 being dishonoured for want of sufficient funds in his SBH account nor the date on which he actually ‘deposited the cash’ for the FDR. And, now he has a completely new version of the series of events and the crucial cheque(s). It is also noteworthy that in the latest version he states that cheque no. 71118 was dated 12.07.02 where as in his averments quoted above he mentions the date of the cheque no. 71117 as 13.07.2002 – in other words, the cheque bearing the immediately preceding serial no. 71117 was issued a day later than the cheque bearing serial no. 71118. This is not a story that can carry conviction, to put it very mildly.

(b)       The IDBI has repeatedly stated before the lower Fora as well as us that under the Suvidha FD scheme, all payments were mandated to be received only by cheque / bank draft / pay order and not in cash. This is also evident from the printed and machine-numbered application forms. The complainant himself has filed photocopies of two of these forms along with his complaint. IDBI has also admitted that the issuance of the FDR no. 32/2/000331 dated 07.08.2002 was an bona fide error on its part because the linked communication of the SBH conveying the ‘stop payment’ advice by the drawer (complainant) on the cheque in question did not come to its notice till a detailed audit was carried out which is also why the IDBI issued quarterly interest warrants to the complainant over a two-year long period. There is no reason to hold that the IDBI’s averments are invalid.

 

8.         In view of the discussion above, we find no material irregularity, legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the UT Commission and accordingly dismiss this revision petition as being devoid of merit. As observed by the UT Commission, this will, however, not stand in the way of the complainant/petitioner seeking remedy against the IDBI before any other Forum if he still thinks that he has a case.

 

 

………………………….

(Rajyalakshmi Rao)

Presiding Member

 

 

 

 

………………………

(Anupam Dasgupta)

Member