Punjab

Sangrur

CC/148/2016

Ajay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shri V.K.Singla

08 Aug 2016

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 148                                                                                        

                                                                    Instituted on:  14.01.2016

                                                                    Decided on:    08.08.2016

 

Ajay Kumar son of Shri Ishwar Dass resident of Backside Geeta Bhawan, Sunam, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         

Versus

Punjab National Bank Branch Sunam, District Sangrur ( A Govt. of India Undertaking with the Head Office, 7- Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi and having its Branches at different places in India  and one of its branch office at Sunam in District Sangrur ( Pb.) through its Branch Manager.

      ….Opposite party.

 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:      Shri V.K.Singla, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY      :      Shri Ajay  Bansal, Advocate           

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

     

 

 

ORDER:  

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Ajay Kumar, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he deposited Rs.5000/- by way of FDR bearing account number 7795018 on 18.05.2002  for three years under " The Multi Benefit Deposit Scheme which was to be matured on 18.05.2005  and thereafter the OP was bound to renew the same automatically as they agreed at the time of deposit  but  the OP failed to renew the same after 18.05.2005 till 19.07.2014. The OP renewed the said  FDR only on 20.07.2014  after calculating the  saving rate of interest of Rs.1998/-  whereas the OP was required to calculate the interest at the agreed rate of interest i.e. 9% . The complainant requested the OP orally as well as through letter dated 3.9.2015 for the difference amount of interest  but they did not pay any heed to the request. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to make the payment of interest amount,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20000/- as compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP, preliminary objections on the grounds of jurisdiction, maintainability, cause of action, locus standi and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.5000/- vide FDR for a period of three years on 18.5.2002.  The OP is not under obligation and it was not the duty of the OP to give information to the complainant about the date of maturity of the said FDR. The FDR of the complainant was renewed by the OP as per direction of head office and as per guidelines  of Reserve Bank of India  and directions/ instructions  issued by the Head Office of the OP. Interest admissible on saving account deposits was granted to the complainant. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             In his evidence, the complainant has produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 and Ex.OP-2 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint before us is with regard to the rate of interest  which has not been paid by the OP till the renewal of the FDR which is document Ex.C-3. During the arguments, learned counsel for the OP has shown us backside of document Ex.C-4  in which it has been specifically mentioned that " The deposit receipt  duly discharged  should be  surrendered at the time of payment or renewal of deposit. To prevent loss of interest the receipt intended for renewal should be sent on due date"  and there is no mention in it  about the auto-renewal of the FDR in question. But, the complainant has deliberately not disclosed this fact as  the backside  of Ex.C-4 was not tendered into evidence. The wording of  Ex.C-4 clearly shows that it was the duty of the complainant to visit  the bank for renewal   but he has failed to visit the OP in time. Further the OP has also tendered document Ex.OP-2  in which it has been mentioned that in such like FDRs  the saving rate of interest on all over due deposits have to be paid and  accordingly the OP has already paid the savings rate of interest at the time of visiting the complainant for renewal.  Moreover, the complainant has failed to produce any evidence that it was the duty of the OP to automatic renewal of the FDRs after due date.  Hence, we find no force in the version of the complainant and accordingly we dismiss the complaint of the complainant. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

        Announced

       August 8, 2016

 

 

 

                ( Sarita Garg)            (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                              

                 Member                           President

 

 

BBS/-