Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/453/2022

Sh. Parveen Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

06 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	453 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	25.05.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	06.09.2023

 

 

 

 

Parveen Garg s/o Sh.Brij Lal Garg, resident of Flat No.591, Trishla Plus Homes, Peer Muchhalla, P.O. Dhakoli 160104 Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, H.O. Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi

2]  General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Retail Banking Division (Resource) H.O. Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

3]  The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh U.T.

4]  The Circle Head/DGM, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Chandigarh Circle, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh U.T.

5]  The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, B.O. Kishangarh, U.T., Chandigarh

6]  The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, B.O. Sector 20, Panchkula.

7]  The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, 4^th Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh U.T. 160017

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

         MR.S.K.SARDANA                 MEMBER

                                                        

 

Present :   Complainant in person

              Sh.Rohit Ummat, Counsel for OPs No.1 to 6

              Sh.Brij Bhushan Sharma, Adv. proxy for Sh.Deepak Suri, Counsel for OP No.7.

 

PER S. K. SARDANA,  MEMBER

 

        The case of the complainant precisely is that he was retired in the year 2014 and got retirement dues to the tune of Rs.34.36 Lakhs. He deposited the said amount with OPs in the shape of 5 FDRs of different amount for a period of 10 years (120 months) to be matured in the year 2024.  It is stated that at the time of deposit of the said amount with OPs as FDRs, the complainant was 56 years & 9 months old and he attained the age of 60 years i.e. status of Senior Citizen on 22.10.2017 during the said FDRs period, therefore, per Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme of the OPs dated 1.8.2011 (Ann.C-1) he was eligible & entitled to get the benefit of 0.50% additional rate of interest over & above the contracted rate @10% p.a. on his all FDRs after the period of 22.10.2017 being a senior citizen.  It is submitted that the Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme is exclusively for depositors who are above 55 years but below 60 years, so the complainant, who was 56 years & 9 months old at the time of deposit of the amount in said FDRs was by default eligible for the benefit of additional interest of 0.50% over and above the contract rate of 10% p.a. It is also submitted that the complainant also did not give any mandate to open the said FDRs under any specific scheme such as Sugam, MBFD etc. but the OP NO.2 vide circular dated 17.10.2014 (Ann.C-4) already clarified that benefit of additional rate of interest of 0.50% permissible under the prospective senior citizen scheme would also be provided to the FDRs open under PNB Sugam, Special FDR etc. The matter was also brought to the notice of Banking Ombudsaman, who vide order/proceedings dated 29.4.2019 (Ann.C-8) observed that application of 0.50% interst is automatically avalble to the complainant at the age of 60 years  and decided that FDRs of the complainant be converted to Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme and the complainant be granted benefit of additional interest of 0.50% over and above the contracted rate of 10% p.a. but that too was not complied with by the OP Bank.  The complainant also represented the OP bank a number of time in his regard, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

2]       The OPs No.1 to 6 have filed joint written version and while admitting the factual matrix about the said deposit of the amount and its FDRs with them in respect of the complainant, stated that the complainant is ex-staff member of OP Bank and is well aware of the schemes of the bank and procedure for opening of FDRs.  It is submitted that the complainant has not mentioned regarding availing of Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme, in the application form, so answering OPs cannot be act or initiate any facility in the absence of written instruction from its customer.  It is also submitted that regarding word ‘automatic’, it is clarified that automatic application in computer system was to be done only if the customer had opted for Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme and then on attaining status of Senior Citizen, the computer system would have automatically applied additional rate of interest.  It is further submitted that in the absence of written instruction on application form how computer system would know that the FDR holder has become Senior Citizen on that specific date.  It is stated that it is clearly mentioned in Ann.C-1 at Para No.14 that entering of date of birth of the depositor is mandatory, which is not done by complainant per Ann.C-5.  It is also stated that for availing Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme, the prospective Senior Citizen sere required to submit their request along with age proof.  It is pleaded that complainant was eligible for the scheme and benefit of it only if he had applied for the same. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed dismissal of the complaint.

         The OP No.7 has also filed written version stating that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.7; OP No.7 is neither a party to the transaction between the complainant and the other OPs nor is it liable in any way to the complainant under any provisions of law.  It is also submitted that complainant is not “consumer” qua OP No.7.  It is stated that the complaint is not maintainable qua answering OP No.7 and lastly it is prayed that the complaint qua OP No.7 be dismissed.

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant thereby controverting the assertions of OPs No.1 to 6 as made in their reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and gone through entire record including written augments.

 

6]       On perusal of the complaint, it is gathered that the single question to be decided by this Commission is that whether the complainant is entitled to get automatically the benefits of additional interest of 0.50% per annum, on the FDRs in question, over & above the contracted interest upon becoming a senior citizen after attaining the age of 60 years. 

 

7]       From perusal of the record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant was an ex-employee/staff of the OP Bank.  Moreover at the time of opening any fixed deposits, the bank insists for the evidence/document by way of PAN Card/Aadhar Card, which carries date of birth.  In the present case, since the complainant being the ex-staff/employee, hence the bank was having the birth date details of the complainant. 

 

8]       Moreover on perusal of Annexure C-4, which is a Circular issued by PNB, Resource Mobilisation Division, New Delhi on 17.10.2014, with regard to “Prospective Senior Citizen Term Deposit Scheme”, it is observed that instructions have been issued in Para ‘3’ to extend the advantage of Prospective Senior Citizen Term Deposit Scheme under various schemes so as to garner more & more depositors under this letter/scheme, the depositor would automatically get additional rate of interest as application to senior citizen presently 0.50%, on attaining the status of Senior Citizen i.e. attaining the age of 60 years during the tenure of the term deposit. 

 

9]       In view of the above instructions, issued by the OP’s themselves, we are of the concerted view that the complainant was entitled to get additional interest of 0.50%, on the FDRs in question, from the date of his attaining the age of 60 years and by not granting the said benefit, the OPs No.1 to 6 have indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing service to the complainant. 

 

10]      Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to OPs No.1 to 6 to grant additional interest of 0.50% p.a. on the FDRs in question of the complainant from the date of his attaining the age of 60 years till the date of maturity.  The OPs No.1 to 6 are also directed to pay the complainant compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental & physical harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 6 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

  

11]      The complaint qua OP No.7 stands dismissed.

 

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced                                                     

06.09.2023                                                               Sd/-         

(AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER