Punjab

Faridkot

CC/19/50

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Canara bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vipan Kumar Tayal

09 Dec 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        50 of 2019

Date of Institution :   27.02.2019

Date of Decision :     09.12.2019

Vijay Kumar aged about 48 years son of Shambu Dayal resident of street No.5, Gobind Puri Muktsar Road, Kotkapura, Tehsil Kotkapura, District Faridkot.                                                                                     

.....Complainant

Versus

 

1. Canara Bank Branch Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot through its Chief Manager.
2. Canara Bank Branch Bathinda through its Regional Manager.

                                    

                                                                               ......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                    Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Vipan Tayal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

 Sh Dildeep Singh, Ld Counsel for OPs.

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                            Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to Ops to credit the amount of Rs.1,15,704/- in the RD account of complainant and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as

cc no.50 of 2019

compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.15,000/- to complainant.

2                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant got opened a recurrent deposit account bearing no. 2104181000565 with OP-1 bank on 27.12.2008 for deposit of Rs.5000/-per month for 120 months in total 10 years and OPs were to pay interest at the rate of 9.5 % per anum and on maturity, complainant was entitled to receive Rs.9,98,996/-. Date of maturity was 27.12.2018. He kept depositing all the instalments regularly without any delay and he never received any notice or complainant regarding any kind of fault in payment of these instalments. It is submitted that on date of maturity i.e on 27.12.2018, OPs did not credit the full maturity amount in his account and finally on 4.1.2019, he was shocked to see that only Rs.8,70,165/-were deposited in his RD account and Rs.13,127/-deducted as TDS by OPs instead of total maturity value of Rs.9,98,996/- and in this way, OPs paid him Rs.1,15,704/- less out of full maturity amount. No notice was given to him prior to deduction of this amount. He made several requests to OPs to credit the remaining amount of interest in his account, but all in vain and they paid no heed to his genuine requests. All this act of crediting less amount in the account of complainant, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has prayed for accepting the complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

Complaint No.- 49 of 2019

3                                      Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 5.03.2019, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                           On receipt of notice, OPs appeared in the Forum through counsel and filed written statement wherein they took preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is not entitled for any relief. There is no deficiency in service on their part as every transaction is done as per rules and norms and as per guidelines of RBI. Moreover, no cause of action arises against answering OPs. However, on merits, ld counsel for OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that complainant has filed the present complaint only to mislead the Forum as full fledged maturity amount has already been paid to complainant. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and all the other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too are denied being wrong and incorrect and made prayer for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Proper opportunities were given to complainant as well as OPs to lead evidence to prove their respective pleading. Ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the same on behalf of complainant.

cc no.50 of 2019

6                 To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Satwant Singh, Ex OP-1, 2/1 and document Ex OP-1,2/2 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

7              We have heard learned counsel for complainant and OPs and have very carefully perused and thoroughly gone through the documents placed on the file by respective parties.

8           From the careful perusal of record and after going through the arguments advanced and evidence led by respective parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that he got opened a recurrent deposit account in OP-1 bank on 27.12.2008 for deposit of Rs.5000/-per month for 10 years and as per pass book issued by OPs, he was entitled for interest at the rate of 9.5% per anum. On maturity, he was to receive Rs.9,98,996/-,but on date of maturity i.e 27.12.2018, OPs deducted Rs.13,127/-as TDS and paid only Rs.8,70,165/- to him instead of maturity value of Rs.9,98,996/- and thereby deducted Rs.1,15,704/- without any reason. OPs paid Rs.1,15,704/- less against his full maturity amount, which is wrong on their part as they have no right to withhold or deduct the amount of complainant. Grievance of the complainant is that despite repeated requests to Ops to credit the remaining amount of maturity value in his account, OPs did not do anything needful and they failed to redress his grievance which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. On the other hand, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant

cc no.50 of 2019

being wrong and incorrect and stressed mainly on the point that full fledged maturity amount has been paid to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part.

9            To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant placed on record copy of his pass book Ex C-2 that itself speaks the grievance of complainant. Ex C-2 reveals that maturity amount for his Recurrent Deposit Account was Rs.9,98,996/-but on 4.01.2019, OPs paid him Rs.8,70,165/- as maturity value for his ten year long recurrent deposit account instead of maturity value of Rs.9,98,996/- mentioned over the cover note of RD Account Pass Book of complainant. Further from the perusal of application filed by complainant before OPs which is Ex C-3, it is clear that OPs paid less interest on his RD account. As per interest mentioned over passbook, complainant was entitled for interest of Rs.3,98,996/-,but after deduction of TDS, OPs paid him Rs.1,15,704/-less than the interest accrued on said RD account. Ex C-5 is also request letter written by complainant to Ops wherein he has humbly requested to credit remaining amount which is less paid by them to his account. Through legal notice Ex C-6 again complainant narrated his grievance before OPs, but paid no heed to hear his problem. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his pleadings and all documents placed on record by complainant are fully authentic and are beyond any doubt. On the other hand, OPs gave no justification for calculating and paying less interest amount to complainant. No plausible

cc no.50 of 2019

reason is put forward by Ops for deduction of huge amount of Rs.1,15,704/-from the accrued maturity value of RD account of complainant.

10                                       From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence and documents placed on record, it is observed that accrued maturity value was Rs.9,98,96/-but Ops paid only Rs.8,70,165/- and deducted Rs.13,127/-as TDS and intentionally withheld the remaining amount of Rs.1,15,704/-, which is not a fair trade. Thus, action of Ops in not paying the full maturity value to complainant for his RD account, is not appropriate and it is grave deficiency in service on their part in deducting Rs.1,15,704/-from the maturity value of Rs.9,98,996/-. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby allowed with direction to OPs to pay Rs.1,15,704/- to complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per anum from 28.12.2018 i.e the date of maturity of said RD account till final realization. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including expenses incurred by him on preset litigation. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 09.12.2019

                                      (Param Pal Kaur)              (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                       Member                         President