Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/15/91

Bachu Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Allahabad Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Narinder Chhibba adv.

27 May 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

                                                                    Complaint No: 91 of 12.02.2015

                                                                   Date of Decision: 27.05.2015

                    

Bachu Lal aged about 55 years s/o Sh.Ram Chatar, Tea Vendor, Outside Plot no.145, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana.

.…Complainant

Versus 

Allahabad Bank, through its Chief Manager, IIFB Branch, Plot no.165, Industrial Area-A, Near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana.

…..Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:    Sh.R.L.Ahuja, President

                    Sh.Sat Paul Garg, Member

                   Smt.Babita, Member

 

Present:      Sh.S.S.Sekhon, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh.Ashok.K.Mittu, Advocate for OP.

 

 

 

ORDER

 

 (SAT PAUL GARG, MEMBER)

1.               Present complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) has been filed by Sh.Bachu Lal s/o Sh.Ram Chatar, Tea Vendor, Outside Plot no.145, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘complainant’) against Allahabad Bank, through its Chief Manager, IIFB Branch, Plot no.165, Industrial Area-A, Near Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘OP’)- directing them to pay Rs.20,000/- as principal amount, to pay Rs.60,000/- as damages, to pay Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant alongwith pendentelite and future interest till full and final payment

2.                Brief facts of the complaint are that on 5.7.10, the complainant got an FDR receipt issued in his favour for an amount of Rs.20,000/- bearing no.TD/765526 dated 5.10.10 and the OP had agreed to pay the interest at the rate of 6.5% p.a. as agreed to and written on the receipt. Time and again the complainant approached the OP and asked the OP to pay the sum as referred above alongwith the interest as enumerated in the FDR itself. Bu the OP stated that the FDR has not been issued by the bank and that is why no amount is to be paid to him. The complainant showed the original FDR to the OP, but nothing was done by the OP. Complainant also got served a legal notice, through registered A.D. on 10.11.14 as well as of dated 17.11.14, but the OP did not give any reply in this regard. Claiming the above act as deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has filed this complaint.

3.                On notice of the complaint, OP appeared through his counsel and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint is misconceived and false; the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Forum. The facts of the case are that the complainant on 3.7.10 had requested the OP to issue one FDR of Rs.20,000/- by debiting his account no.20170903870 and signed the requisite debit voucher in this regard. On the basis of the above said signed debit voucher, the complainant might have managed the alleged FDR of Rs.20,000/- as the complainant is working as tea vendor, just in front of the branch of OP and known to all the staff members of the bank/branch, but due to some technical defect in the computer system on that day, actually no amount was debited from the saving account of the complainant neither on 3.10.10 on afterwards. The OP duly conveyed the complainant about the non debiting of the amount of his saving account and requested him so many times to submit back the alleged piece of paper/FDR or sign another Transfer Voucher for making fresh FDR, but the complainant never did so and continued postponing the same. As no amount was actually debited from the account of the complainant and no consideration was passed to the OP, hence there was no contract between the parties, in the eyes of law; the complaint is time barred. On merits, admitting the contents of para noi.1 and 2 of the complaint and further denying the contents of all other paras of the complaint, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

4.                Ld. Counsel for complainant has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of complainant Sh.Bachu Lal Ex.CA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the complaint and also attached documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for OP has adduced the evidence by way of duly sworn affidavit of Sh.I.K.Gandhi, Authorized Officer of Allahabad Bank, IFB Branch, Cheema Chowk, Ludhiana Ex.RA, wherein, the same facts have been reiterated as narrated in the written statement and also attached documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

5.                Case was fixed for arguments. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that complainant got FDR issued for Rs.20,000/- by debiting the said amount from his account bearing no.20170903870 on 3.7.10, which was to mature on 3.7.11, but after one year, he was surprised to know that the FDR Ex.C1 issued by the OP was only a simple paper and in the record no such FDR is registered as admitted by the OP and it was due to some technical defect in the computer system on that day.

6.                Refuting the allegations leveled by the complainant, Ld. counsel for OP argued that it is correct that complainant applied for the FDR on 3.7.10, but from the perusal of Ex.R2, which is the statement of account of saving bank account of the complainant, it reveals that no amount of Rs.20,000/- has been shown to be debited in the account of the complainant on 3.7.10. It is the technical defect of the computer as such amount of the complainant remained intact in the saving account. As such, prayer of the complainant to refund the principle amount of Rs.20,000/- alongwith damages etc. is not sustainable, because amount was never deposited in the FDR.

7.                We have gone through the pleadings of the complainant as well as defence taken by the OP and have also gone through the entire record placed on file.

8.                It is evident from Ex.C1 that complainant applied for the FDR on 3.7.10 due date of which was 5.7.11 and rate of interest was to be shown as 6.5% and the maturity amount was shown as Rs.21,332/-, but due to technical defect in the computer system no amount was debited from his saving bank account towards FDR. As such, refund of Rs.20,000/- is not permissible under the present circumstances. However, the complainant is entitled for the interest of 6.5% for one year for the period i.e. 3.7.10 to 5.7.11 and at the same time interest, which accrued for this amount in his saving account may be deducted, only difference of interest of allowable.

9.                Sequel to the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed and OP is directed to make good the loss of interest, which was to accrue to him under fixed deposit scheme for one year. Further OP is directed to pay Rs.2500/- (Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation and litigation expenses compositely assessed to the complainant. Order be complied within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, which be made available to the parties, free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

 

                   (Babita)                          (S.P.Garg)                      (R.L.Ahuja)

                   Member                           Member                         President

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated:27.05.2015 

Hardeep Singh