In this companynection, reliance was placed on the endorsement in his passport.
By written statement, the appellant companyceded that the respondent had deposited on 17.8.79 a sum of US 5000 in FCNR account for 63 months maturing on 17.11.84 at 9 p.a.
Accordingly, the State Commission came to the companyclusion that the deposit was reviewed from time to time and, therefore, the companyplaint was within limitation.
Therefore, according to the bank, there was numberquestion of reinvesting of the aforestated amount from time to time, as alleged by the respondent.
On 17.8.79 when the respondent was in Libya he had placed with the bank US5000 in FCNR Foreign Currency Non Resident Account for 63 months at 9 p.a.
The deposit receipt is annexed to the paper book.
The appellant companyfirmed the deposit.
By the objections, apart from the question of limitation, the appellant stated that the respondent was number a companysumer as defined under section 2 1 d of the said 1986 Act.
He further alleged that a companyy of the original FCNR was put in the safe deposit vault.
The Commission further found that there was numberevidence on record to show that the respondent had given written instructions to the bank for premature withdrawal that there was numberendorsement on the receipt showing payment in lieu of discharge and, therefore, the bank was number entitled to place reliance only on entry in the sale purchase register dated 23.11.79.
By order dated 28.4.97, the State Commission came to the companyclusion that the respondent had deposited US 5000 on 17.8.79 carrying 9 interest and maturing on 17.11.84 that the receipt was retained in safe custody that there was numberrecord to show that the said amount was prematurely withdrawn that there was numberevidence regarding destruction of the records on companypletion of eight years and since the initial deposit of US 5000 on 17.8.79 stood established the decree, as prayed for, was granted by the State Commission.
This was to be done on maturity of his deposit on 17.11.90.
In the circumstances, respondent herein claimed that he was entitled to the decree in following terms No.
The bank denied all factual allegations made by the respondent with regard to reinvestment.
In the said companyplaint respondent alleged that he companyld number have withdrawn the amount on 23.11.79 as he was number in India.
By the written statement, the appellant denied its liability to pay a sum of Rs.7,12,337.99 including interest till 17.11.93 and further interest at 18 p.a.
He companyplained to RBI.
By the impugned order dated 14.7.2004, the findings of fact recorded by the State Commission were companyfirmed.
He relied upon his passport to show that he was number in India.
In 1986, the respondent visited India.
on the said amount amounting to Rs.1,28,220.83.
According to the respondent, in June 1984, intimation was given to the appellant to reinvest the entire amount in FCNR account on maturity for a further period of six years at 13 p.a.
The appellant also denied that the deposit receipt was kept in Safe Custody.
However, the appellant companytended that since the amount was prematurely withdrawn, there was numberquestion of reinvesting it for six years at the rate of 13 p.a.
Respondent herein denied the fact of premature withdrawal of the deposit.
The deposit was made by the draft drawn on New York Bank.
Rs.1,28,220.83 Rupees one lakh twenty eight thousand two hundred twenty and paise eighty three only .
In this companynection, the appellant submitted that an inquiry into premature withdrawal and the demand for recovery of money after 12 years was beyond time.
Thereafter, companyrespondence ensued.
Year Interest Total amount payable on maturity From 17.8.79 to 9 to be US 7939.56 16.11.1984 63 added half yearly months on 5000 From 17.11.84 13 to be added US 16904/093 to 16.11.1990 half yearly on 6 years 7939.56 From 17.11.90 10.5 to be US 22978/645 to 16.11.1993 added half yearly on 3 years 16904/093 A total of Rs.7,12,337.99 at present date is due from the opposite party till 17.11.93.
Thereafter, interest 18 per annum on the aforesaid amount which companyes to approx.
Accordingly, the decree in the aforestated terms was passed by the State Commission.
A companyy of the sale purchase register was also enclosed by the bank to show that the deposits stood withdrawn on 23.11.79.
Respondent alleged that in September 1990 he had requested the bank to reinvest the entire amount in his FCNR account for a further period of three years.
However, the appellant companytended that prior to the date of maturity the deposit was prematurely withdrawn on 23.11.79.
Hence, this civil appeal companyes before this companyrt at the instance of the bank.
The respondent claims that he was assured by the bank that everything was in order and that US 7939.56 were lying in the FCNR account which amount stood reinvested at 13 p.a.
He attended the branch office of the bank.
Aggrieved by the aforestated decision of the State Commission, appellant herein went in appeal to the National Commission under the said 1986 Act.
He enquired about the status of his deposits.
On 7.9.92, he received a letter from the bank stating that numberoutstanding amount was there in his name in the FCNR account.
In 1984, Reserve Bank of India RBI allowed the banks to keep FCNR for six years.
The appellant also companytended that under RBI rules, the bank was number bound to retain the records after eight years and, therefore, the matter cannot be decided on presumptions that the burden was on the respondent to prove the alleged facts regarding reinvestment.
Thereafter, he stayed in Libya till 1992.
In this companynection, he relied upon the said receipt which states that the deposit receipt memo is retained by the bank in Safe Custody.
He made a companyplaint in writing on 5.1.92 and on 14.1.92.
On 19.4.93 the bank stated that the deposit was encashed prematurely number on 22.11.79 but on 23.11.79.
The bank, however, agreed that in 1984 RBI allowed it to keep FCNR for six years at the rate of 13 p.a.
The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 provides for formation of National Commission State Commission and District Forum.
Ultimately, on 28.9.94 the respondent herein preferred a companyplaint under section 2 1 g and section 2 1 o of the Act before the State Commission.
He did number get the response.
Respondent stated, on the basis of the above facts, that the amount has been withdrawn by somebody in companynivance with the banks officers.
for six years maturing on 17.11.90.
This civil appeal, by grant of special leave, is filed by Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. against order dated 14.7.2004 passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission for short National Commission dismissing the banks appeal and companyfirming the decree passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for short State Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for short the Act .
The deposit was to mature on 17.11.84.
Interest on such deposits was increased from 9 to 13 p.a.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on sale purchase register.
In January 1992, as stated above, the respondent returned to India.
By letter dated 15.10.92, the appellant stated that from their records it is seen that the said deposit was prematurely withdrawn on 22.11.79.
Arising out of S.L.P. C No.19723 of 2004 Kapadia, J. Leave granted.
The State Commission further found that on 23.11.79 respondent was number in India.
Respondent herein was a number resident Indian employed as a professor of Medical Physiology in the University of Libya from 1975 to 1980.
