View 3086 Cases Against Axis Bank
Ankush Garg filed a consumer case on 09 Jun 2016 against Axis Bank Ltd. in the Sangrur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/785/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 14 Jun 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR
Complaint no. 785
Instituted on: 05.08.2015
Decided on: 09.06.2016
Ankush Garg son of Shri Prem Chand Garg, resident of House No.536, Street No.3-B, Mehal Mubarak Colony, Sangrur.
…. Complainant.
Versus
1. Axis Bank Ltd. Corporate Office, Bombay Dyeing Mills Compound, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli,Mumbai .
2. Axis Bank Ltd, 2nd Floor, SCO 369 and 370 Sector 34-A, Chandigarh through its Regional Manager.
3. Axis Bank Limited, SCF No.17-18-19 Branch kaula Park Sangrur through its Branch Manager.
….Opposite parties.
FOR THE COMPLAINANT: Shri S.P.Sharma, Advocate
FOR THE OPP. PARTIES : Shri N.S.Sahni, Advocate.
Quorum
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
K.C.Sharma, Member
Sarita Garg, Member
ORDER:
Sukhpal Singh Gill, President
1. Ankush Garg, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he is having account number 497010100010858 and fixed deposit bearing 911040024921038. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP on 09.05.2011 in the shape of FDR. On 30.03.2015, the complainant received a call from the bank official of OP No.3 then the complainant along with his father visited the Branch office OP No.3 who told the complainant that the bank has not calculated the interest on the FDR since 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015 as the system blocked the FDR of the complainant but the complainant never requested to discontinue the said FDR nor requested to block the same. Then the official of the OP No.3 obtained the signatures of the complainant on the FDR and told the complainant FDR has been renewed for the date 01.09.2014 onwards and he is entitled for interest as already settled between the complainant and OP no.3. Thereafter the complainant came to know by receiving a message on mobile number 9779138500 that FDR has been blocked and less amount o Rs.13720/- has been deposited in the account. The complainant told the official of OP No.3 that it is not our fault because the said FDR are automatically renewed since the last year under the scheme code i.e. RIC of the OP No.3. The complainant also approached the higher officials of the OPs who assured that the matter will be solved within few days and interest for the period from 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015 will be paid. Thereafter the complainant visited the OP no.3 and requested to pay the interest amount due and to renew the FDR but they did not do so. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:-
i) OPs be directed to pay Rs. 13720/- alongwith interest @18% per annum till realization,
ii) OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee.
2. In reply filed by the OPs, it is admitted that the complainant got deposited an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with the OP No.3 on 09.05.2011 in the shape of FDR and entries were made by the officials of the OP No.2 in the FDR. It is denied that the entries were automatically renewed by the OP No.3. Rather the FDR was to be renewed on asking of the complainant. At the of deposit of amount in the FDR the complainant filled the form and made so many options given in the form and one of the option was whether the FDR should be automatically renewed and the complainant opted no in the form and thus the said FDR was not to be renewed automatically. The complainant was called by the bank and he came and requested to close my FDR and adjust the same into my his account. Accordingly the FDR was closed and the amount due was credited to the account of the complainant . It is denied that the OP No.3 told that there was a fault in the computer system. It is denied that the OPs have wrongly deducted Rs.8995/- without any justification. It is denied that the signatures were obtained on forms etc rather the complainant himself signed on the FDR with request to close the FDR. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
3. The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the documents submitted by the parties, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the non-renewal of FDR of the complainant automatically and deposited less amount of Rs.13720/- in the account of the complainant.
5. In this regard, the complainant has alleged that said FDRs are automatically renewed since the last year under the scheme code i.e. RIC of the OP No.3 and as such he is entitled for the amount of Rs.13720/- as interest. The complainant has further alleged that if the bank admitted the fault of computer system then why the bank is not liable to pay the fixed rate of interest i.e. 9% per annum from 01.09.2014 to 31.03.2015 to him. On the other hand, OPs have asserted that the FDRs were to be renewed on asking of the complainant and same were not to be renewed automatically and at the time of deposit the amount in the shape of FDR, the complainant filled the form and made so many options given in the form and one of the option was whether FDR should be automatically renewed in which the complainant opted no in the form and thus the said FDR was not to be renewed automatically.
6. We have perused the document Ex.C-2 which is a copy of deposit receipt produced on record by the complainant himself and find that it is clearly mentioned on it that " Facility of renewal with retrospective effect not available to deposits that have been overdue beyond fourteen days". We have also gone through the document Ex.OP-2 which is a form filled by the complainant at the time amount deposited in the shape of FDR with the OPs and find that at the time of filing the said form the complainant had not opted the option of autorenewal of FDR. Accordingly, we find no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
7. From the facts stated above, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.
Announced.
June 9, 2016.
( Sarita Garg) ( K.C.Sharma) (Sukhpal Singh Gill)
Member Member President
BBS/-
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.