BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 64 of 2017
Date of Institution : 17.3.2017
Date of Decision : 8.2.2018
Veenu Mittal, aged 19 years, daughter of Shri Om Parkash Mittal son of Shri Arjan Dass, resident of 151, A-Block, Sirsa, at present Ajanta Boot House, Opp. Alpna Optical, Railway Road, Rohtak, District Rohtak.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1 Canara Bank, Noharia Bazar, Sirsa Branch, now at Sangwan Chowk, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Branch Manager.
2 Regional Manager, Canara Bank, Regional Office, Kunjpura Road, Karnal Pin 132 001, through its Regional Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA…… PRESIDENT
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.JBL Garg, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that on 29.5.1997, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was got deposited in the name of the complainant with op no.1 in the shape of a Fixed Deposit vide receipt no.554419 dated 23.5.1997. On the same day, another sum of Rs.50,000/- was also got deposited with the op no.1 in the name of brother of complainant namely Mohit Mittal in the shape of Fixed Deposit. Both these Fixed deposit receipts were having the feature of Auto Renewal and payment of the deposit receipt was to be made on the majority to the complainant. On 27.11.2012, the FDR in the name of Mohit Mittal became matured and the op made payment of a sum of Rs.2,43,272/- as maturity value of the said FDR to Mohit Mittal. It is further averred that on the majority of the complainant, the complainant visited the op no.1 for encashment of the above FDR on 19.9.2016 and op no.1 made payment of a sum of Rs.2,23,861/- to the complainant. The complainant was highly surprised and shocked to receive very less amount in comparison to the maturity amount of FDR of her brother Mohit Mittal. The complainant inquired about this fact from op no.1, whereupon, op no.1 disclosed the fact that only saving bank interest has been paid on this FDR. On hearing this, the complainant was further surprised and astonished, because this FDR of complainant like her brother Mohit Mittal was auto renewal. The complainant requested the op no.1 to recalculate the interest on this FDR and to pay the interest as per auto renewal mode, but the op no.1 refused for the same. So, constrained with this situation, the complainant got served a legal notice upon the ops through her counsel Shri Manoj Kumar Munjal, Advocate of Rohtak on 20.12.2016, but the ops did not pay any heed to the same. That the complainant is legally as well as factually entitled to get the difference of the amount of interest on the above FDR after calculation of the same as per rate applicable to the FDR in auto renewal mode and the ops are under legal obligation to pay the same to the complainant. The ops by their act and conduct have been indulged in unfair trade practice and have committed gross deficiency in service towards the complainant, due to which the complainant has undergone unnecessary harassment, hardship, mental tension, pain, agony etc., and as such, the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complainant has failed to serve prior notice to the ops before filing the present complaint and also regarding estoppal, maintainability, cause of action, suppression of true and material facts, jurisdiction and mis joinder of necessary party and that no consumer dispute is made out against the ops and also that complainant has failed to avail the departmental remedy prior to filing of present complaint. On merits, it is submitted that it is wrong to suggest that both these FDRs were having the feature of auto renewal. It is specifically denied that these FDRs were auto renewal features. It is correct that after attaining majority the complainant was entitled for the withdrawal of deposited amount as per terms of FDR issued to the complainant. The complainant has received a sum of Rs.2,23,861/- against the FDRs on 19.9.2016. As a matter of fact initially the FDR was prepared in the name of Baby Veenu daughter of Shri Om Parkash Mittal and Ashok Kumar and Parveen Kumar on 23.05.1997 w.e.f. 23.5.1997 to 22.05.2007. The FDR bearing No.293/97 was due on 23.05.2007 having its maturity value of Rs.1,63,402/- only. It is worth while to mention here that the above said FDR was not having the feature of auto renewal. The said FDR was prepared only for 120 months. Thereafter i.e. after expiry of maturity date of the FDR none has come forward to the ops for its renewal. The answering ops were having no instructions from the complainant as well as the holder’s on behalf of above said FDR for the renewal of said FDR. As per norms of the bank the FDR having no feature of auto renewal and prepared/issued for a fixed period and not renewed further, then holder of the FDR shall be entitled for saving account interest only. In the present case also the FDR in question was due on 23.5.2007 and the said FDR has not been renewed for further period, hence the complainant is entitled to the proceeds of the FDR in question alongwith further interest of saving bank account w.e.f 23.5.2007. It is further submitted that the complainant never approached to ops nor it is possible for the complainant, hence question of refusal by the op no.1 does not simply arise. No such legal notice has ever been received by the answering ops. The complainant is not entitled to any relief for her own wrongs because if the complainant has renewed the FDR in question for further period and has given instructions at the time of issuance of said FDR for auto renewal features, then complainant might be entitled for the interest as per auto renewal or FD interest. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied.
3. The complainant produced her affidavit Ex.C1, copy of FDR Ex.C2, copy of FDR Ex.C3, copy of pass book of Mohit Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7, copy of legal notice Ex.C8, copy of postal receipt Ex.C9. On the other hand, ops produced affidavit of Sh. Satnam Kamboj, Branch Manager Ex.RW1/A and copy of FDR Ex.R1.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. It is an admitted fact that a deposit of Rs.50,000/- was made on 29.5.1997 at the rate of 13% in the name of complainant Veenu Mittal who was minor at that time as her date of birth is 14.10.1995 and two others namely Ashok Kumar and Parveen Kumar for a period of 10 years with maturity date as 23.5.2007. The maturity proceeds were payable amounting to Rs.1,79,710/- on 23.5.2007. As per averments of the complainant, a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited on the same day in the name of her brother Mohit Mittal who was also minor and FDR was issued for 10 years with maturity value of Rs.1,79,710/-. The complainant has stated that maturity proceeds were paid to Mohit amounting to Rs.2,43,272/- on 27.11.2012 whereas she has been paid maturity proceeds of Rs.2,23,861/- which is much less than the maturity proceed of FDR of her brother Mohit Mittal. It has been placed on record by the complainant that the complainant filed a case in the Civil Court for release of the maturity proceeds on attaining age of majority. The Bank released the maturity proceeds amounting to Rs.2,23,861/- on 19.9.2016 instead of correct maturity proceeds. She has filed the present complaint for the difference of the maturity proceeds. The ops no.1 and 2 while filling written statement have averred that FDR bearing No.293/97 was issued for ten years and was due on 23.5.2007 having its maturity value of Rs.1,63,402/- on 23.5.2007. Thereafter, i.e. after expiry of maturity date of the FDR, none has come forward to the ops for its renewal. The averment of the complainant having auto renewal facility has been denied by the ops with the submissions that as per norms of the bank, the FDR having no feature of auto renewal and prepared/ issued for a fixed period and not renewed further, in such a case the holder of the FDR shall be entitled for saving fund account interest only. From the record placed on file by the complainant and the ops, it has been proved beyond any doubt that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited for 10 years at the rate of 13% with maturity date on 23.5.2007 with maturity value of Rs.1,79,710/-. It is also proved vide Ex.R1 that the maturity value has been reduced from Rs.1,79,710/- to Rs.1,63,402/- for the reasons best known to the ops and this amendment is not bearing any signatures of authorized signatory on behalf of ops. As per the then rules of Reserve Bank of India, the deposit could be accepted for a maximum period of 10 years. Since the depositor was minor, amount was payable to her on the date of attaining her majority i.e. 14.10.2013 as her date of birth is 14.10.1995. The ops have admitted in para no.1 on page no.2 of written statement that it is correct that after attaining majority, the complainant was entitled for the withdrawal of deposited amount as per terms of FDR issued to the complainant. Therefore, it was the legal obligation of the ops to safeguard the interest of the minor who placed her money in the hands of the ops till her attaining majority. As per Ex.C2, the maturity value of the FDR in question amounts to Rs.1,79,710/- whereas the ops have reduced this maturity value from Rs.1,79,710/- to Rs.1,63,402/- as on 23.5.2007 as per Ex.R1 and this has been reiterated by the ops in the written statement. As per mathematical calculation, the correct maturity amount arises at Rs.1,79,710/- for the given amount of Rs.50,000/-, time and rate of interest and reduction by the Bank without any reason from Rs.1,79,710/- to Rs.1,63,402/- is wrong and not based on merits. As per Banking law and practice, the amount of the maturity proceeds was to be paid to the account holder on her attaining majority on 14.10.2013 and whereas she was minor on the date of maturity of the FDR in question i.e. on 23.5.2007, it was legal obligation of the Bank to renew the said maturity proceeds for further appropriate period up to the date of attaining majority by the complainant at the rate of interest applicable at that time. After the date of attaining majority by the complainant, the amount proceeds remained with the bank till 19.9.2016 and the complainant is entitled to receive interest at saving fund interest rate from 14.10.2013 to 18.9.2016. We do not agree with the averments of the complainant for comparison of maturity proceeds of FDR of her brother who attained majority earlier than her i.e. on 23.7.2011 and the amount of Rs.2,43,272/- was received by him on 27.11.2012. From the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Bank adopted unfair trade practice and is deficient in service towards the complainant and failed in its duty to safeguards the interest of the minor Baby Veenu Mittal in whose name alongwith two others deposit was made with the ops.
6. In view of the above discussion and facts of the case, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to look into the matter again and pay a sum of Rs.1,79,710/- as maturity proceeds of FDR No.293/97 maturing on 23.5.2007 which may further be deemed as reinvested for a suitable period till the attainment of majority i.e. 14.10.2013 at the rate of FDR interest applicable as on 23.5.2007. The maturity proceeds thus arrived at on 14.10.2013 be deemed further invested with the Bank at the then prevailing Saving Fund rate of interest and thus the complainant is entitled to get the maturity proceeds on 19.9.2016 as per the re-enacted statement of account. We, therefore, direct the ops no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to re-enact the account of complainant from 23.5.2007 with maturity value of Rs.1,79,710/- at the then applicable FD rate of interest till 13.10.2013 and pay applicable saving fund interest rate from 14.10.2013 to 18.9.2016 on maturity value payable on 14.10.2013 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the account holders as per original mandate minus payment if any, already made failing which the ops shall be liable to pay further interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the above said so arrived at amount of maturity proceeds. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:8.2.2018. Member District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
