Delhi

East Delhi

CC/301/2015

M.L MARWAH - Complainant(s)

Versus

CANARA BANK - Opp.Party(s)

27 Nov 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. 301/15

 

Shri M.L. Marwah

Flat No. 5, Vandana Apartments

Plot No. 42, I.P. Extension

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

Canara Bank

Patparganj Branch

Atlantic Arcade

Delhi – 110 092Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 27.04.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 19.03.2018

Judgment Passed on: 26.03.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

            The present complaint has been filed by Shri M.L. Marwah against Canara Bank, Patparganj Branch (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 alleging deficiency in services.   

 

2.         Briefly stated the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had complained against Shri S.K. Batra, the Branch Manager of Canara Bank for short payment of Rs, 11,138/- with respect to the RD Account no. 2756181000594.  Thereafter, OP refunded total funds of Rs. 19,43,611/02.  The said amount was remitted against fixed deposits with date of maturity from April 2021, but OP without the consent or prior notice to the complainant closed the said Fixed Deposit Accounts on 06.09.2014.  All the funds remained with Canara Bank (OP) till 06.02.2015.  The complainant lodged a complaint to the head office of OP at Bangalore and requested for re-opening of account, but all in vain. 

            It was stated that the complainant submitted his case before the Banking Ombudsman.  They ordered the bank either to give 30 days’ notice for closing the accounts or 30 days’ interest in lieu of notice period.  Canara Bank handed over a cheque for Rs. 15,936/- to the complainant on 04.02.2015 alongwith a cheque of Rs. 19,43,611.02 which was revalidated on 23.01,2015.  The amount of Rs. 19,43,611.02  and Rs. 15,936/-  were credited in the account of the complainant on 06.02.2015.

            It was further stated that the bank paid interest in all the accounts up to 06.09.2014 and the cheque dated 06.09.2014 was revalidated on 23.01.2015 and received by the complainant on 04.02.2015 which resulted loss of interest for an amount of Rs. 2,47,457/-.

            It was also stated that the bank deducted 2% penalty on premature payment of all deposits which should not be deducted as the bank closed the complainant’s accounts without his consent.  At the same time, OP did not pay ½% interest as payable in Senior Citizen’s case.  There was a breach of contract from the bank’s side.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to pay short payment of interest from 06.09.2014 to 06.02.2015 for Rs. 2,44,031; penalty due as per Ombudsman Rs. 3,426/-  (Rs. 16,362-15,9360) and Rs. 50,000/- for conveyance expenses for eight months making a total of Rs. 2,97,457/- alongwith 10.5% interest.

            The complainant has annexed photocopies of deposits, email dated 11.09.2014 written to the Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank, Bangalore, Order of Banking Ombudsman dated 09.02.2015, letter dated 23.01.2015 from OP to the complainant, copy of DD dated 06.09.2014 and revalidated on 23.01.2015, copy of pass book of the complainant, letter written by the complainant to OP dated 04.02.2015, letter to the complainant dated 04.03.2015 and email dated 22.02.2015 to OP and letter to OP dated 20.02.2015 alongwith the complaint.

 

3.         Notice of the present complaint was served upon OP, but neither anyone appeared nor any reply was filed on their behalf, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. 

 

4.         Ex-parte evidence was filed by the complainant where he has reiterated the averments of the complaint,.  He has relied on the annexures, annexed with the complaint. 

 

5.         We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP and have perused the material.  The grievance of the complainant is that his fixed deposits were closed prematurely on 06.09.2014 by OP without any notice. 

            On the other hand, counsel for OP stated that as the complainant was dealing in old currency notes and was interrupting with the smooth working of the bank by misbehaving with the staff; due to this reason, the bank account and fixed deposits of complainant were closed.

            On enquiry, the counsel for OP was unable to bring any guidelines on record to show that their act was not arbitrary and as they have been proceeded ex-parte, averments made by the complaint have remained unrebutted.  The deduction of penalty charge on premature closure was also an arbitrary act of OP, as OP themselves have closed the fixed deposit account of the complainant without his consent and without giving prior notice. 

            Further, complainant was also entitled to ½% additional interest on account of being senior citizen. Therefore, this amounts to deficiency in services as well as unfair trade practice writ at large, but at the same time, the complainant has received the amount, thus he can be reimbursed only in terms of compensation.   

            Hence, we allow the present complaint and direct OP to pay              Rs. 45,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony and pain.  We also award Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.  This order be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order.

 

            Copy of the order be supplied to both the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

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

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President