Before  the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central], 5th Floor                                         ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi

                               Complaint Case No.202/13.07.2015

Raman Aggarwal S/o Shri R.R. Aggarwal

R/o 1500, Azad Market  Delhi-110006                          ..Complainant

                                      Versus

Indian Bank

H.O. at Corporate Office At 254-260,

Avvai Shamugam Salai Royapetah

Chennai-600014 and

Branch- at 10223, Gurdwara Road,

Karol Bagh  New Delhi-110005                                               ...Opposite Party

[as per order dated 04.11.2022]

                                                                   Order Reserved on:     31.01.2023

                                                                   Date of Order:             03.04.2023

Coram: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai,    Member

              Ms. Shahina, Member -Female

Inder Jeet Singh

                                             ORDER

1.1. (Introduction the status of parties & to case of parties): Initially complainant was filed against Allahabad Bank, 101741,Gurudwara Road, Ajmal Khan Road, Branch, Delhi, however, during the pending of complaint, the Allhabad Bank had merged into the Indian Bank, thus on the application of OP based on Gazette Notification GSR-156(E) dated 4.3.2020 wef 1.4.2020, the name of Indian Bank was incorporated as Opposite Party vide order dated 04.11.2022.

1.2: The consumer dispute in this complaint is that complainant got prepared an FDR of Rs.1,00,000/- after conditional bail order by the Court of Session Judge, Delhi, to be dealt with after final verdict, which came in favour of complainant. However, he was not paid actual amount payable, since the FDR was to be renewed automatically.  The complainant was to be paid higher interest of 9.5% pa. There is deficiency of services.

          However, OP has reservations that FDR was renewed as per banking norms, practice and as per latest circular issued for compliance,  the complainant was to get renewed the FDR for further period which he failed, thus as such automatically amount had transferred in the over-due term deposit account. Neither the complainant was to be paid higher interest of 9.5% pa nor there is deficiency of services.

2.1 (Case of complainant): Complainant is peace loving Indian citizen and a practicing Lawyer in
Delhi.  Opposite Party is a Branch of Nationalized Bank, having its office/branch at Karol Bagh. The Complainant had married in year 2000. There were temperamental differences between the complainant and his wife, which result into divorce
proceedings, besides as a matter of routine, criminal case u/ss 498A/406/34 IPC was also registered against him and his mother. In the bail proceedings before, the Court of Session Judge, Delhi, it was directed to the complainant to keep an amount, equivalent to the disputed Istridhan, with the trial Court without prejudice to his rights and contentions to
his bona-fide, apart from other directions in bail order to release the amount after the judgment in favour of the party establishing its bona-fide.  In compliance of such directions, the complainant's relatives, on behalf of the Complainant, deposited cash and applied for FDR for Rs.1,00,000/- to OP  in the name of his ex-spouse.

          On 04.01.2003, OP issued FDR of Rs. 1,00,000/- for 12 months and the same was to be automatically renewed on its maturity on interest rate of 6.5% per annum. On 16.05.2007, OP had renewed the FDR of Rs. 1,24,891/- since the interest rates were higher in year, it was renewed at higher rate of interest of 9.5% per annum vide ledger no. 54/383 and a/c no.804273.

2.2:    The criminal trial was concluded on 04.08.2014 with observation it was an after-thought story of the then spouse of complainant and the
Court had  also directed to release the deposited amount in favour of the complainant. After receiving back FDR from the court, the complainant approached OP for encashment of FDR but the officials of OP took FDR from him but starting harassing the complainant and  also asked to bring NOC from his mother,  who was co-accused
in that case. The complainant again approached to OP with NOC from his
mother for encashment of FDR, but OP again refused to release the amount and OP also asked to bring clear Order from Court for release of the amount in the name of Complainant. Thence, the complainant again applied and took Order from the criminal trial Court, despite that OP didn't refund the amount of the FDR on one pretext or the other.

2.3: It was 01.10.2014, when the complainant had serious discussion regarding non-payment of the FDR amount,  then only Senior Manager of OP assured to release the amount at the earliest and it was 08.10.2014, when the amount was released but it was much less than the actual amount. The OP had released only Rs. 1,37,185/- but the actual amount
must be paid to the complainant, whose life ruined in facing long trial for 13 long years.

2.4: The OP knowingly and intentionally didn't pay actual
 amount of FDR to the complainant, OP caused the complainant to suffer
wrongful loss, irreparable loss and injury relating to monetary losses on
account of its negligent services. Thus  because of rude and indifferent attitude of the OP, inferior
and sub-standard quality services, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, hardship, pain and irreparable loss,  which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Whereas, OP is bound to provide
best services to their customers, which has not been provided intentionally
and deliberately for some ulterior motive and
mala-fide. The OP is to be directed to pay to complainant  the actual amount of payable under FDR besides to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- & cost of Rs.22,000/-.

2.5 The complaint is accompanying photocopy of FDR dated 04.01.2013 (at page 6) but no other document was filed with complaint or later-on, although the complaint mentions about accompanying copy of bail order and final judgment of trial court.

3.1 (Case of OP) : The OP opposed the complaint, on various grounds, inter-alia, that  complaint is devoid of merit, complainant has no locus stand to file the complaint against  OP and it is also liable to be dismissed as there is no cause of action  against OP, as OP has paid/released amount of FDR as per norms of the Bank. Moreover, the complainant has failed to file FDR dated 16.05.2007 for  which relief is being sought. The present complaint is barred by limitation , the complainant has not come with clean hand and suppressed material facts from this  Forum. No mandatory notice was issued before filing the complaint. As per record the FDR was renewed on 16.05.2007 vide account no.
804273, ledger no. 54/383, TDR/4-956384 at interest rate of 9.5%. Thence, complainant never get renewed FDR for further period as such automatically the amount had transferred into the over-due term deposit account. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for interest @, of 9.50% pa.

3.2:  Although after getting released the FDR from court, the complainant had approached OP for the payment, however, complainant's allegations that the officials of OP accepted the FDR but the complainant was never harassed or asked to bring the NOC from his mother. The OP asked, whichever was as per norms of the Bank. OP also denies that Senior Manager of the opposite party gave  assurances to release the amount at the earliest.  On 01.10.2014 the said FDR amount was paid to the complainant through pay order, which was the post TDS
being maturity value of the Instrument.
However, in case there happens to be any  error in interest component, if so found by the complainant, same may be advised to OP in writing so that OP may recalculate the same as per prevailing guidelines for interest on over-due term deposits. the FDR was renewed on 16.05.2007 vide account no.
804273, ledger no. 54/383, TDR/4-956384 at interest rate of 9.5%.  The OP denies all other allegations of suffering wrongful loss, irreparable loss or injury relating to monetary losses  or there is rude or indifferent attitude of the opposite party or inferior or sub standard quality services, the complainant suffered mental tension, agony, hardship, pain or irreparable loss or which cannot be compensated in terms of money

4. (Replication of complainant) :  The complainant re-affirms his case in complainant by responding to reply of OP as well as by explaining that he was constraint as he could not file copy of FDR, since the concerned lady official in the bank had refused to hand-over copy of FDR.

5. (Evidence) : Shri Raman Aggarwal, complainant, filed his affidavit of evidence, which is narrative of complaint to establish his case.  On the other, OP filed affidavit of evidence of its authorized employee Ms Asha Suri, her affidavit is also on the lines of reply.

6.1 (Submission of Parties) : Both the parties filed their respective written submission, apart from oral submission by the complainant himself and Ms. Rashimi Srivastava, Advocate for OP. 

6.2. The complainant had also filed calculation sheets to show that through-out from 16.5.2017 interest @ 9.5%pa was payable vis a vis OP filed copies of circular no.10529/DEV/2009-10/18 dated 22.5.2009 regarding interest on encashment of over-due term deposits, extract from another circular no.11349 dated 8.4.2011 clause (l)..

7.1 (Findings) :  The contention of both the sides are considered keeping in view the material on record. Some of the legal issues are raised by the OP, they will be dealt in brief firstly and then prime issue on point of interest will be dealt.

7.2.1:  The OP contends that complainant has no locus-standi to file complaint under the assumption that FDR was not in the name of complainant but in the name of Sweta Aggarwal. However, the reasons are misplaced since the FDR was prepared on deposit of amount  by & on behalf of complainant pursuant to orders of Court of Sessions, Delhi, to be dealt with as per final verdict. Moreover, as per copy of FDR, it was prepared in the name 'Sweta Aggarwal wife of Shri Raman Aggarwal [at page 6 of complaint]' as well as the complainant was handed over the FDR by the Court for its encashment after final verdict. It is never the case of OP that any person other than the complainant had approached the OP for encashment of FDR. Thus, complainant has locus standi to file the complaint.

7.2.2 The OP's other plea [that statutory notice was not given to OP by the complainant prior to filing of the complaint] is not substantiated as to which law prescribes service of legal notice prior to filing the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. Thus, this plea does not sustain and it is decided against OP.

7.2.3  The third plea of OP is the complaint is barred by law of limitation.  The OP had not elucidated as to how it is barred by law of limitation under the Consumer Protection Act.  As per record, the date of filing of complaint is 13.7.2015. The complainant has also mentioned that criminal trial court had decided the case 04.08.2014 (paragraph 9 of the complaint), it is admitted by the OP.  The right to get released amount of FDR will be after final decision of the trial court, since it was directed in the bail order. Is the complaint dated 13.7.2015 not within two years from date of decision 04.08.2014? The objection has been taken by OP just for the sake of objection, there is no merit in this objection. The complaint is within time prescribed by law.

7.2.4  The fourth objection of OP is non-filing of FDR dated 16.05.2007 by the complainant. It is fact, copy of FDR has not been filed and FDR (at page 6 of the complaint) is of 4.1.2004. However, the complaint had explained at the stage of rejoinder (para 3 to reply to preliminary objections) that lady bank official failed to handover the copy of FDR, then how could the complainant could file FDR prepared in 2007.  Otherwise, it is admitted case of complainant that FDR was renewed at that time by OP, thus FDR is not disputed. This contention also stand disposed off.

7.3: Now the main issue is taken, it is about cause of action for interest component on FDR. By taking stock of all the circumstances on record, it is held that complainant could not establish his complaint for the following reasons:-

(i)  the complainant has not filed the conditional bail order by the court of Sessions Judge, Delhi, to prove, for this complaint, the actual directions for  FDR,

(ii) the FDR dated 4.1.2003, as per copy on record, was for a period of one year but what were  other directions by the Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi, about its tenure or renewals have not been proved by the complaint, 

(iii) the complaint could not prove the directions, if any, for renewals by Court of Sessions Judge, Delhi, were communicated to OP to be complied  by OP [today complainant appeared and he has brought photocopy of incomplete bail order dated 04.01.2003 (being first page only) that conditional order was passed, one of the component is of FDR in the name of complainant in FIR no. 527/2002 , to be dealt by the trial court. Copy of another order dated 04.08.2014 is also filed that Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate directed for release of FDR amount to the present complainant]

(iv) Now in view of the photocopies of order shown and filed today, it does not depict any direction to the Bank for auto-renewal of FD from time to time,

(v)     the complaint took the plea of following banking practice as well as circulars dated 22.5.2009 and 8.4.2011, which have been produced to authenticate it, that those practices were being followed by the Bank, inclusive of in the respect of  subject FDR,

 (vi)   the OP-Branch was bound by the banking norms,  circulars issued from time to time and as per circular dated 22.5.2009 in case  over due Term Deposit Receipt is presented for encashment , simple interest for overdue period  at saving bank interest will be paid with immediate effect. In the circular of 2011, the term deposit holder may give instruction for closure of deposit account or renewal of deposit for further period on the date of maturity,

(vii)   the complainant had not requested to OP Bank for renewal of FDR at any point of time nor he could prove that he was not to request for renewals nor because of court directions FDR was to be renewed automatically,  and

(viii) there is no proof of entitlement of interest @ 9.5%pa throughout by the complainant as mentioned in calculation sheet.

7.4  Accordingly, the complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed.

8. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for necessary compliance.

9. It is appropriate to record that this Commission is facing great difficulty in day to day its functioning for want of regular PA and stenographer, since only one stenographer Gr-III is posted for all work.

10.  Announced on this 3rd of April, 2023 [चैत्र 13, साका 1945].

[Vyas Muni Rai]                        [ Shahina]                            [Inder Jeet Singh]

           Member                            Member (Female)                              President