BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.

Complaint No. 165 of 2021.

Date of institution: 16.08.2021

                                                                      Date of Decision:  28.07.2023.

Suresh Kumar Nanda aged about 56 years son of Shri Atam Parkash, resident of H. No. 66, DC Colony, Near Central School, Barnala Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

                                                                             ……….Complainant.

                                                Versus

Canara Bank Ltd. Main Branch, Surkhab Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.

..……..Opposite Party.

          Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT

        SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR ……………..MEMBER  

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Shri S.L. Sachdeva, Advocate for the opposite party.              

ORDER:-

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that on 29.03.2011 the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.81,295/- with the opposite party (hereinafter referred as OP) bank in the shape of FDR bearing No. 1403421000018/1 under Customer ID No. 34339371 for a period of 1200 days under KDR Canara Samridhi General Scheme and as per the norms of the bank, the aforesaid FDR was to be matured on 11.07.2014. That on the date of maturity, the maturity amount of Rs.1,09,761/- including interest was to be paid to him by the op bank. An FDR was also issued by the op bank to the complainant in this regard. It is further averred that at the time of deposit of the aforesaid amount by the complainant with the op bank in the shape of FDR under the aforesaid scheme, necessary forms were filled by the complainant in this regard and while filling up the necessary forms, he had chosen the auto renewal policy of the op bank. That accordingly on 11.07.2014 the aforesaid FDR of complainant was matured and as per the said scheme, the aforesaid FDR was automatically renewed for a further period of 1200 days as explained above and thus the same was to be further matured in the year 2017. It is further averred that on 25.04.2015, the op bank made an endorsement on the back side of the original FDR regarding the auto renewal of the same for a further period of 1200 days w.e.f. 11.07.2014 to 22.10.2017 and as per the endorsement on the day of maturity, a total sum of Rs.1,47,378/- was payable to the complainant by the op bank but the complainant again choose to renew the same for a further period of 1200 days. That on 22.10.2017 the said FDR of the complainant was again matured but as complainant had already chosen the auto renewal of FDR, therefore, the same was again automatically renewed for a further period of 1200 days and accordingly the same was to be matured in the month of February, 2021. It is further averred that in the month of February, 2021, on maturity the complainant contacted the op bank and requested to release the maturity amount in his favour including up to date interest but surprisingly it was alleged by the op bank that the scheme under which the above FDR was prepared has already been closed down and thus the complainant is not entitled to the FDR interest rather he is entitled to the saving interest only.

2.       It is further averred that as per the calculation from the period October, 2017 to February, 2021, a total sum of Rs.1,80,417/- (Rs.1,47,378/- as maturity amount as on 22.10.2017 and Rs.33039/- as interest) were to be paid by the op bank to the complainant but out of this much amount only a sum of Rs.1,56,180/- was paid by op to the complainant. Thus, a sum of Rs.24237/- has been paid less by the op bank to the complainant which is wrong and illegal act of op bank and no intimation regarding closing down of said scheme has been supplied to the complainant nor the amount was deposited in his saving bank rather same was kept in the FD account only. That complainant thereafter contacted the op bank time and again and also had made a written complaint dated 22.02.2021 in this regard and requested to make the payment of the aforesaid sum of Rs.24,237/- but the op bank remained on postponing the matter with one false pretext or the other. It is further averred that complainant also made telephonic calls to the op bank in this regard and during telephonic conversation, the complainant was promised by the op bank that aforesaid due amount has been sanctioned from the higher authorities and same shall be paid to the complainant soon. That since February, 2021 to July, 2021 the complainant continued to contact the op bank time and again for release of said amount but op bank did not respond satisfactorily and ultimately vide letter dated 22.07.2021, the op bank has refused to pay the said amount illegally alleging that said policy has not been got renewed by complainant from 23.10.2017 and has caused unnecessary harassment and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.       On notice, op appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that complainant deposited a sum of Rs.81,295/- in the shape of FDR which matured on 11.07.2014. The said FDR was again renewed on 25.04.2015 which was to be matured on 22.10.2017 but thereafter the said FDR has not been renewed further by the complainant. It is wrong that abovesaid FDR was under auto renewal policy. That abovesaid FDR was matured on 11.07.2014 and on the request of complainant, the same was further renewed for a period of 1200 days and same was to be matured on 22.10.2017. The FDR was not renewed for further period. Moreover, there was no instruction on behalf of complainant for its renewal, hence the same could not be renewed for further period w.e.f. 23.10.2017. It is wrong that complainant chose to renew the said FDR for a further period of 1200 days. It is further submitted that complainant was appraised about true facts that since the FDR in question could not be renewed further w.e.f. 23.10.2017, hence is not entitled for interest as per FDR. However, as per RBI instruction bearing No. RBI/2021-2022/ 67, if a term deposit matures and proceeds are unpaid, the amount left unclaimed with the Bank shall attract rate of interest as applicable to savings deposits. It is further submitted that as stated above the FDR in question could not be renewed further w.e.f. 23.10.2017 by the complainant, hence he was entitled for saving account interest. Accordingly on the request of complainant, the FDR in question has been encashed and interest w.e.f. 23.10.2017 to the date of withdrawal of the amount has been given as saving account interest. The interest given to the complainant on the deposit amount as per RBI instructions and there is no provision in the Bank to inform the depositor regarding renewal of any FDR, hence no information was required to be given to the complainant  by the answering op. If the complainant has got his FDR renewed further on 23.10.2017 then he might have been entitled for interest as per FDR rate. In the absence of the renewal, the complainant is not entitled for FDR interest. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.  

4.       The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copies of documents i.e. adhar card Ex.C1, FDR document dated 11.07.2014 Ex.C2, application moved by complainant to the bank dated 22.02.2021 Ex.C3 and letter dated 22.07.2021 of the bank Ex.C4.

5.       On the other hand, op bank has tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kumar, Manager as Ex.R1 and copies of documents i.e. letter dated 22.07.2021 Ex.R2 and guidelines of RBI dated 02.07.2021 Ex.R3.

6.       We have heard complainant as well as learned counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the case file carefully.

7.       It is an undisputed fact between the parties that on 29.03.2011 complainant had deposited amount of Rs.81,295/- with the op bank in the shape of FDR for a period of 1200 days under KDR Canara Samriddhi General Scheme and the aforesaid FDR was matured on 11.07.2014 and on the date of maturity, the maturity amount of Rs.1,09,761/- including interest was to be paid to him by op bank. It is also an admitted fact between the parties that FDR in question was further renewed for a further period of 1200 days i.e. from 11.07.2014 to 22.10.2017 and on the date of maturity, an amount of Rs.1,47,378/- was payable to the complainant by the op. It is also proved on record from the copy of FDR Ex.C2 that on the back of said FDR, an endorsement was made by op bank on 25.04.2015 that said FDR is being renewed till 22.10.2017 and the column of the option of auto renewal of FDR was tick marked meaning thereby that op bank got filled form from the complainant regarding automatic renewal of the FDR. It is also proved on record that said FDR of complainant was matured on 22.10.2017 and as the complainant had already chosen the auto renewal of FDR, therefore, same was to be renewed for a further period of 1200 days i.e. up month of February, 2021 automatically. The plea of the op bank that as there was no instruction on behalf of complainant for further renewal of FDR in question, hence the same could not be renewed for further period w.e.f. 23.10.2017 has no substance because on 25.04.2015 itself the complainant had chosen for auto renewal of the FDR and as such complainant waited for completion of FDR period of 1200 days i.e. up to the month of February 2021 from 23.10.2017. The instructions of RBI dated 02.07.2021 relied upon by op bank in its written version as well as in evidence as Ex.R3 are not helpful to the op bank because first of all said instructions are of dated 02.07.2021 whereas the FDR of the complainant was to be matured in the month of February, 2021 and therefore these instructions will not be applicable from retrospective date. Secondly it is proved on record that complainant had chosen for auto renewal of the FDR and as such he waited till the period of February, 2021 from 23.10.2017, therefore, it cannot be said that there was no instruction from complainant to renew the FDR and therefore, the instruction regarding payment of rate of interest on saving account are not applicable in this case. As such it is proved on record that op bank is deficient in service and has wrongly and illegally withheld the amount of Rs.24,237/- and has paid less interest amount on the maturity amount of FDR to the complainant.

8.       In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party to pay the amount of Rs.24,237/- alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of payment of maturity amount (i.e. from the month of February, 2021 when the less amount was paid to the complainant) till actual realization within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. We also direct the op bank to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced:                           Member                                       President,

Dated: 28.07.2023.                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                        Redressal Commission, Sirsa.

JK