Delhi

East Delhi

CC/330/2015

KIRAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 330/15

Ms. KIRAN MARWAH,

R/O FLAT NO. 42,

I.P. EXTN, PATPARGANJ,

1.  

Vs

 

CANARA BANK,

PATPARGANJ BRANCH,

ATLANTIC ARCADE,

DELHI-92                                                                                                   ….Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 11.05.2015

Judgment Reserved for: 19.03.2018

Judgment Passed on: 09.04.2018

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant Ms. Kiran Marwah, against Canara Bank (OP) stating that she had a recurring deposit account with OP bearing no. 2756181000594. The date of opening account was 31.12.2008 with maturity dated 30.06.2013. The complainant had to pay 54 installments of Rs.5,000/- each and amount due on maturity was Rs.3,39,036/-. The rate of interest was 9.75% and the number of delayed installments was two. The complainant had given standing instructions to the bank to transfer the installment amount from her                                            SBI account No. 2756101002172. The grievance of the complainant was that at the time of maturity she was paid Rs.3,28,125/-, the complainant approached the OP for clarification regarding the short payment of Rs.11,138/- where she was informed that as there was delay in payment of installments, hence, the interest with respect of the Recurring Deposit Account was paid at 9.75% simple interest instead of 9.75% compound interest. It has been further stated that at the most the OP could have charged penalty two times of instalment for two installments. Despite several reminders, requesting the OP to remit Rs.11,138/- the same remained unpaid till the filing of the complaint. The complainant has also alleged that the terms and conditions agreeing to which the simple interest was paid were not printed on the pass book issued to the complainant. Hence, present complaint seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.11,138/-, Rs.10,000/- on account of conveyance and miscellaneous expenditure along with Rs.2,600/- as interest @12% for two years.

The complainant has annexed reply by OP to her letter dated 26.02.2014 alongwith statement of account, copy of statement savings account in the name of Sh. M.L. Marwah, help desk case details dated 07.11.2013 as Annexure-2, emails written to OP by the complainant have been annexed as Annexure-3, complaint to General Manager Canara Bank dated 27.02.2014 as Annexure-4, complaints to Branch Manager, Patparganj dated 31.08.2013-12.08.2013, another complaint dated 04.07.2013 addressed to Branch Manager has been annexed as Annexure-5, Annexure-6, Annexure-7 respectively and letter dated 24.10.2013 as Annexure-8.

2. Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP, thereafter they filed their written statement and have stated that the complainant was very well aware of the norms of the bank which were as follows-

“To be eligible for the contracted maturity value at compounded interest rate, delayed payment of installments should not exceed 4 in number. If there is delay in remittance of more than 4 installments, the RD account is to be repaid @ Simple interest on monthly product basis.”

The complainant was paid simple interest @ 9.75% instead of compound interest due to the reason that the complainant had failed to pay six installments in time, it was further submitted that the complainant had not maintained sufficient funds in Savings Account and her husband used to misbehave and abuse the staff of OP as he used to deposit huge amount of soiled and cut notes in his account, which had not been cleared by currency chest. The complaint was registered by OP vide DD entry 44B dated 13.04.2014 to the SHO Police Station, Madhu Vihar. Rest of the contents of the complaint has been denied.

3. The complainant filed her Rejoinder where it was stated that the bank has debited Rs.375/- as penalty for five delayed installments. It was further stated that quarterly interest was also not credited in the Recurring Account. Rests of the contents of written statement were denied & she reiterated the contents of the complaint.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complaint where she has got herself examined and has reiterated the contents of the complaint on oath.

OP got examined Sh. S.K. Behra Branch Manager of Canara Bank Patparganj who has also reiterated the contents of the reply and has got exhibited the copy of the statement of the account of the complainant as Ex. RW1/1, copy of the RD interest Accrual details is as Ex. RW1/2, copy of the letter dated 31.07.2013 as Ex. RW1/3, copy of the complaint dated 06.08.2013 and 27.02.2014 and DD entry No. 44 B dated 13.09.2014 as Ex. RW1/4 and Ex. RW1/5 (colly) respectively, copy of the reply dated 15.10.2013 & 26.02.2014 as Ex. RW1/6 and power of attorney in favour of                      Shri S.K. Behra as Ex. RW1/7.

5. We have heard the arguments on behalf of complaint and Ld. Counsel for the OP and have perused the material on record.

The complainant has alleged short payment of Rs. 11,138/- by OP, if we look at Ex. RW1/1 i.e. the statement of Recurring Deposit Account of the complainant we observe that there has been a delay in payment of more than four instalments further, the complainant has placed on record letter written to OP received on 29.10.2013, which bears a note where the complainant has stated that the bank/OP never informed her of the late installment due to shortage of balance in her Account. During the course of arguments it was stated by the complainant and her husband that they had retired as bank officials, that being so they cannot allege ignorance of terms and conditions and all the more, it was the duty of the complainant to maintain sufficient balance in order to make sure that instructions given by her were duly honored. Further, the complainant has not placed statement of Savings Bank Account to prove that OP had delayed in debiting payment, despite there being sufficient balance.

Therefore, when the complainant herself has delayed the payment of installments, she cannot allege deficiency in services against OP. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

 

(Dr.P.N.TIWARI)                                                     (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                 

      MEMBER                                                                           MEMBER      

 

 

                                         (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                PRESIDENT