Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/18/138

Dilip Modi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, Punjab & Sindh Bank - Opp.Party(s)

26 Feb 2022

ORDER

1. Complainant has filed this case with prayer for direction to O.Ps. to pay Rs. 2,29,881/- with interest on account of maturity value of the fixed deposit and for payment of Rs.50,000/- and Rs. 25,000/-  as compensation and litigation cost respectively to the complainant.
2.          Complainant’s case in brief is that a FDR vide No. FDR/73 No. 088243/87 dt. 09.05.1988 for Rs. 20,000/- for a period of one year at @ 9% interest was issued by the Punjab & Sind Bank, herein the opposite parties, in favour of the FA & CAO (con), SER, GRC Account Narbada Construction. Further case is that said F.D. R. was deposited with the South Eastern Railway, which was released on 29.06.2018. On release of the FDR by the Railway administration on 29.06.2018 when the FDR in original was submitted with the O.Ps. for payment, a Bank Draft No. 401472 dt. 29.08.2018 for Rs. 48,514.53/- only was forwarded by the O.Ps. to the complainant as the total amount with accrued interest for thirty (30) years, leading to dispute. The reason of dispute, with detailed calculation of FDR interest, was intimated to the O.Ps. and a request was made for the release of the balance amount of accrued interest at an early date having no response, thereafter, complainant has filed this case before this Commission for deficiency in banking service by the O.Ps. with above mentioned prayer.
3.  

4           Main question for decision is whether the calculation of interest by the Bank on FDR of Rs. 20,000/- is correct or whether the claim for payment of remaining amount of Rs. 2,29,881/- as made by the complainant is correct ? And whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed ?

5   In support its case complainant has produced photo copy of following documents:-

1. Photo copy of Advocate’s Notice dt. 09.10.2018.
2. Photo copy of several letters of different dates written by the complainant to the Branch Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank, Ranchi.
3. Photo copy of letter dt. 31.03.2018 written by the Bank concerned to the complainant.
4. Photo copy of letter dt. 10.06.2018 written by the South Eastern Railway to the complainant.
5. Photo copy of letter dt. 30.08.2018 written by the Bank concerned to the complainant.
6. Photo copy of FDR receipt dt. 09.05.1987 for Rs. 20,000/- related to Punjab & Sind Bank, Main Road Ranchi.
7. Photo copy of letter dt. 19.03.2018 written by Chief Manager, Union Bank of India, B.S.City, Bokaro with annexure.

6. No any evidence has been produced by the O.Ps.
7. Apart from filing of photo copy of some of the letters etc.      complainant has been examined as witness No.1 who produced his examination-in-chief  on affidavit before the Commission and he has been cross-examined by the O.P. on 06.04.2019. Later on complainant has filed an application on 23.04.2019 with prayer not to read his statement made in cross-examination because the statement made in cross-examination was under medication leading to drossiness. Therefore, in our opinion the statement/evidence of the complainant made in examination-in-chief on affidavit shall not be read in this case on his own prayer because without cross-examination the examination-in-chief is having no evidentiary value in the eye of law. Hence matter has been taken up for decision on the basis of documents only.

  8     From the pleadings of the parties it is apparent that the opening of FDR of Rs. 20,000/- on 09.05.1987 for 12 months period for the interest @ 9% per annum is admitted fact. Further admitted fact is that said FDR was deposited before South Eastern Railway. Another admitted fact is that said FDR was remained with Railway concerned which was released on 29.06.2018 in favour of the complainant and thereafter, it was produced before the O.Ps. for its encashment. Further admitted fact is that complainant received bank draft of Rs. 48,514.53/- issued by the O.Ps. bank as maturity value of said FDR and prior to 29.06.2018 said original FDR was never produced before the Bank concerned.

 

9.    Though during argument attention of this Commission has been drawn on some guidelines taken out from the website but it appears that the letters which have been referred are subsequent letters and non is related to the relevant period i.e. the period on which FDR was opened which was dt. 09.05.1987. However, there is no specific evidence by the complainant to show that he has given specific instruction to the O.Ps. for re-investment of the maturity amount of the FDR on its maturity on 09.05.1988. As per complaint petition the said FDR after its receipt from the Bank was deposited in the office of South Eastern Railway, which was received by the complainant from the office of the South Eastern Railway on 29.06.2018 (para 4 &6 of the complaint petition). There is no paper or evidence to show about any instruction from the complainant to the O.Ps. for renewal of the FDR on the date of maturity i.e. on 09.05.1988 or any subsequent date by way of fixed deposit.
10.   Since complainant was not in possession of the FDR till 29.06.2018 hence he cannot say that without original FDR receipt he has given any instruction to the O.P. Bank. As per banking norms in case of no any specific instruction from the depositor the bank will pay interest applicable for the savings bank account, accordingly, payment has also been made to the complainant. All the correspondence as it has been brought on the record by the complainant are related to the year 2018. So far, the rate of interest  calculated by the Union Bank of India is concerned it is not applicable in the present case because the  alleged FDR was created on 09.05.1987 and rate of interest as supplied by the Union Bank of India is for the period of 1992 to 2017. The conduct of the complainant shows that he was not vigilant in respect to banking transaction either due to his own will related to deposit of FDR in the Railway office or it is his willful act. It is apparent that after opening of FDR on 09.05.1987 complainant was sleeping for a long period for about 30 years. Hence for the latches committed on the part of the complainant O.P. cannot be held liable.
11.   Therefore, in light of above discussion we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. and complainant is not entitled to get any relief.
12.     Accordingly, this case is dismissed with cost.