DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 15 of 18.1.2016
Decided on: 29.9.2016
Surinder Pal Jindal Resident of H.No.54, Rose Colony, Rajpura Road, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Mall Road Branch, Chotti Baradari, Patiala.
…………Opposite Party
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Baljinder Singh,Adv. counsel for the
complainant.
Sh.B.B.Gupta,Adv. counsel for the opposite party.
ORDER
SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT
Sh. Surinder Pal has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the O.P.) praying for the following reliefs:-
- To return the deducted amount of Rs.13,660/- from the maturity value of the five Nos. FDRs
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of harassment, agony and inconvenience caused to him on account of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice
- To pay Rs.5000/-
- Any other relief which this Forum may deem fit.
2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he renewed his five FDRs for the period from 23.3.2014 to 29.9.2015 i.e. for 555 days @ 9.75% per annum interest. The bank deduced Rs.13,660/- from the maturity value of the FDRs regarding which no clarification was provided by the bank. He requested all the officer/Sr.officers of the Bank to resolve the issue and to refund the un-necessary deduction made by the Bank from the maturity amount of the FDRs but no heed was paid . A legal notice dated 17.10.2015 was also got served upon the opposite party but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party, which caused mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint
3. On being put to notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written version having taken the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. Central Bank of India. On merits , it is admitted that the 5 No.FDRs were renewed with effect from 23.3.2014 to 29.5.2015 for a period of 555 days @ 9.75% per annum.It is denied that the Bank has deducted a sum of Rs.13,660/- as tax at source. In fact whatever the amount was payable including the amount of interest @ Rs.9.75% has been paid in full and final. There is no unlawful act on the part of the Bank. The complainant has not suffered any loss of Rs.13660/-. The Bank has paid the entire amount at the agreed rate of interest which has been so got calculated from the certified chartered accountants. However, at the time of payment of the maturity value of the FDRs , it is transpired that the official concerned ,who renewed the FDRs in 2014, worked out the amount of interest on higher side , which is a matter of arithmetical calculations and for which the complainant is not entitled to take any benefit. It is denied that the Bank has intentionally, illegally or unauthorizedly deducted any amount as alleged by the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. and the Bank has not caused any mental agony, harassment or inconvenience to the complainant. After denouncing all other averments made in the complaint, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered in evidence Ex.CA his sworn affidavit,Exs.C1 to C5, copies of automatic renewal of FDRs,Exs.C6&C7 copies of extract of pass book, Ex.C8 copy of legal notice and closed the evidence.
On the contrary, the learned counsel for the O.P. tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Sh.H.P.S.Sehgal, Branch Manager,Central Bank of India,Ex.OP1 copy of letter, and closed the evidence.
5. The parties filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same, heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that the O.P.Bank has paid him lesser amount than the due maturity amount mentioned on the five FDRs, which he got renewed in the year,2014. On the contrary, the stand of the O.P. is that it has paid the due maturity amount alongwith interest @ 9.75% per annum on the principal amount. However, the concerned official while renewing the said five FDRs of the complainant, in the year,2014, has wrongly mentioned the maturity amount more than the actual maturity amount. Once the O.P. has already paid the complainant, the due/actual maturity amount for which he was entitled to, then the complainant has no right to demand the amount for which he is not entitled to.
7. From the perusal of the copies of five FDRs Exs.C1 to C5, it is evident that all the FDRs carry rate of interest @ 9.75% per annum. By applying said rate of interest, as is evident from the calculations,Ex.OP1, got made from the authorized Chartered Accountant, the maturity amount of all the FDRs has rightly been paid by the O.P. The maturity amount written in the FDRs has wrongly been calculated by the official concerned of the O.P. The wrong calculation of the maturity amount vests no right with the complainant to demand more amount than the actual maturity amount. Only the correct/due amount has to be released on the maturity date of the FDRs, which has rightly been done. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is devoid of any merit. Accordingly the same is dismissed without any costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
Dated:29.9.2016
