Delhi

North East

CC/42/2018

Birender Mohan Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bank of Baroda - Opp.Party(s)

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 42/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Birender Mohan Gupta A-28/1, Gamri Extension Punjabi Colony Delhi- 110053	Complainant
	Versus
	Bank of Baroda F-513, Khajuri Khas Bhajanpura, Delhi-110094	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

24.02.2018 31.01.2019 31.01.2019

 

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

ORDER

1. Facts germane in the present consumer dispute with OP as narrated by the complainant are that he had savings account bearing no. 27890100000009 with OP bank and had got a joint FD bearing no TBM/TDR/2008/F 660606 with his daughter Sweta Gupta on 30.10.2008 for a value of Rs. 50,000/- paid from his saving account by a cheque and the said FD carried operational instruction–either or survivor with option of auto renewal or withdrawal at the time of maturity. The complainant got the said FD renewed  time to time with OP endorsement on the back of it and was never asked for his daughter’s signature thereon. On 26.10.2009, the complainant had pledged the said FD against Loan taken from the OP for his elder daughter wedding and the OP had required only his signature for the same. On 04.12.2009, the complainant cleared the loan of OP and got the said FD Lien free and the same was endorsed by OP on top of the said FD. However, dispute arose when the complainant approached the OP for liquidation / claiming of maturity value on 17.11.2017 to OP with the belief that he would get immediate disbursal of the FD amount, but the OP instead asked for his daughter’s signature and also to bring her along to the OP bank where she was made to sign in front of the OP staff despite operational instruction either or survivor which entitled any of the joint FD account holder to withdraw money against it. The OP asked the complainant to come after two- three days to take the money on the pretext of Bank Manager being on leave. But when the complainant went after two days to withdraw the amount, the OP officials asked for Aadhar Card of the complainant’s daughter and insisted on sending the same on the OP website which the complainant complied with but the OP thereafter started insisting on KYC updation and on one pretext or other declined to release the FDR maturity value to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant was constrained to file the present complaint against the OP praying for issuance of direction against the OP to release the maturity value of FD alongwith payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.

Complainant has attached the copy of TDR bearing no TBM/TDR/2008/F660606.

2. Notice was issued to the OP on 02.04.2018. However, since the same was returned as address found incorrect, the complainant filed fresh address of OP and took Dasti Summons to OP branch Khajoori Khas which were received by Manager concerned on 13.04.2018. However, none appeared on behalf of OP and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 02.07.2018.
3. Complainant was filed evidence by of affidavit and written arguments on 07.08.2018 and 10.10.2018 respectively in reiteration of his grievance against OP.
4. We have heard the arguments forwarded by complainant in person and have perused the case file in particular the  TDR in question which was declared Lien free by OP vide endorsement dated 04.12.2009.

In absence of rebuttal by OP due to its willful non appearance despite receipt of notice, no defence has come forth from OP for declining / refusing disbursal of the maturity value of the TDR. The Hon’ble National Commission in Navodaya Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd and Ors Vs Vimal and Anr IV (2017) CPJ 70 (NC) in a similar case where the bank had disallowed the complainant to withdraw the maturity amount of FD had held the bank deficient in service and non appearance of the bank was construed as amounting to admission of allegation made in consumer complaint against the bank. The Hon’ble National Commission further observed that the complainant / consumer cannot be made to suffer for acts of omission and commission made by bank which has used money deposited by complainant in form of FD for a considerable period of time and consumer has every right to demand and get back his hard earned money from bank for which he cannot be deprived of wrong doings on part of bank.

5. Following the above said case law and the observation made by the Hon’ble National Commission, we allow the present complaint and direct OP bank to release the FDR maturity value in favour of complainant and also to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 1,000/- towards cost of litigation. Let the order be complied by OP within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 
6.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7.   File be consigned to record room.
8.   Announced on 31.01.2019 

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member