Punjab

Sangrur

CC/784/2015

Renu Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.P. Sharma

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                                     

                            

                                                                   Complaint no. 784                                                                                              

                                                                     Instituted on:  05.08.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    09.06.2016

 

Renu Garg wife 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.          Ranu Garg, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that she is having account number 911010011738970 and fixed deposit bearing  911040043360733. The complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1,30,000/-  with the OP no.3 on  18.08.2011  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 her husband visited the Branch office of OP No.3 who told the complainant that the bank  has not calculated the interest on the FDR  since 04.09.2014 to 30.03.2015  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  that FDR  has been renewed  for further period  and she 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 of Rs.8995/-  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 01.04.2014 to 31.12.2014 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.8995/-  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.1,30,000/-  with the OP No.3 on 18.08.2011 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 herself  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.8995/- 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.8995/-  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 04.09.2014 to 30.03.2015 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 herself 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/-