DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 31st day of January, 2019
C.D Case No. 22 of 2016
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
Sri Rabinarayan Ojha
S/o: Surendra Nath Ojha,
At/Po: Dolasahi,
Ps: Tihidi,
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Bhadrak Branch
At/Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Counsel For Complainant: Mr. Biswanath Sahoo (B), Adv
Counsel For the OP: Mr. Jaminikanta Nayak, Adv
Date of hearing: 29.11.2017
Date of order: 31.01.2019
BASANTA KUMAR MALLICK, MEMBER
This dispute arose out of a complaint filed by the complainant alleging deficiency of service against OP.
The facts of the complaint are to the effect that the complainant is an old man of nearly 63 years old and also a depositor of OP Bank having two numbers of savings bank accounts bearing No- 01190013293 and 01190013326 and other five numbers of fixed deposit accounts of Rs 30,000/- each which were opened on 31.07.2003. Out of five numbers of F.D accounts, the complainant had withdrawn an F.D account on premature closing on dt. 07.12.2004. The due date of maturity of remaining four fixed deposit accounts was 31.07.2006 after which the complainant requested OP to credit the maturity value of the fixed deposit accounts to his above mentioned SB accounts which was agreed by the OP and assured to credit the maturity value of fixed deposits to the SB account of the complainant which could not be materialized within the date line. But after one month OP credited the maturity value of only one fixed deposit account to the SB deposit A/c of the complainant on 30.08.2006 instead of crediting the maturity value all four fixed deposit accounts. When the complainant found the maturity value of other three fixed deposits is not credited to his SB account maintained with OP bank he, in several times, requested OP to credit the amount to his SB account so as to enable him to withdraw the same as he was in dire need of money but the bank maintained a silence on the issue and did not prefer to say anything about non-credit of the amount to the personal account of the complainant which amounts to deficiency of service. Being aggrieved with the irresponsive attitude of OP, the complainant served a notice upon the OP through his advocate requesting credit of the maturity value to his SB account along with accounts statement of SB account/FD accounts within 15 days failing which the complainant would be constrained to dispute the matter in the appropriate Court of law. But the OP did not pay any heed to the legal notice of the complainant and also did not initiate any action to resolve the problem. Being disappointed, complainant filed this case in this Forum praying for a direction to the OP to credit the maturity value of the F.Ds to the SB account of the complainant together with interest and cost and compensation for causing inordinate delay in payment of the maturity value.
OP objected the claim of the complainant and contested the case. In submitting written version OP has raised the question of cause of action, barred by limitation, suppression of facts and nil deficiency of service. Complainant has raised that the pleadings do not reveal as to from what date the cause of action arose and questioned as to why the complainant was silent for a prolonged period of 9 years and some odd months to file case in this Forum. Such inordinate delay in raising the issue in the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum falls under barred by limitation and as the bank has not caused any deficiency in providing required service to the Consumer/Complainant, this dispute does not comply the basic requirements for which liable to be dismissed. It is further submitted by the OP that it has not caused any deficiency of service nor the compliant reveals any instance of deficiency of service, rather the OP has made all possible efforts and business transactions for the benefit of the complainant.
It is admitted by the OP that the complainant is a depositor of the OP bank having both savings and fixed deposit accounts. Out of the total five fixed deposit accounts, the F.D account bearing No- 0129201332503 was closed premature and the amount of Rs 31,870/- was credited to the SB account of the complainant bearing No- 01190073293 on dt. 07.12.2014. The maturity value of another fixed deposit account bearing No- 012920133257 was also paid by way of crediting the SB account bearing No- 01190013326 of the complainant on dt. 30.08.2006 and the same was once again invested in shape of a F.D for a further period of 45 days and after its maturity, the maturity value of Rs 35,137/- was credited to the education loan A/c availed by the complainant. As regard F.D account No- 0129201332505, the said F.D account was reinvested/renewed for a further period of 45 days which was matured on 16.09.2006 and out of total maturity value of Rs 35,966/- an amount of Rs 14,863/- was credited to education loan account No- 015930017385 and the residual amount together with the maturity value of F.D No- 0129001335201, the total of which comes to Rs 57,069/- which was kept in a F.D account bearing No- 01292001332506 and on its maturity the same was renewed for a further period of 46 days. In this manner the said A/c has been renewed time and again and the final renewal was done on 15.09.2015. It is also submitted by the OP that initially the transaction and renewal was done manually but the bank after entering into core banking system, the calculation of interest at the agreed rate and renewal of the accounts are being done by the system automatically and the OP do not feel there is any mistake or wrong in it. In this manner the OP has not caused any deficiency of service nor has kept the complainant in darkness. The said accounts as narrated above is still maintained after closer of some accounts and the complainant may opt for closer of F.D A/c as and when necessary. It is not the fault of the bank but due to misunderstanding, the complainant has raised this dispute which does not have any merit and liable to be dismissed.
We have gone through the complaint, written version filed by OP, heard both the parties in course of hearing, perused materials on record and observed as discussed hereunder.
1. Admittedly the complainant was a Customer/Depositor of OP bank having two numbers of SB accounts and 5 numbers fixed deposit accounts out of which one F.D account bearing No- 0129201332503 was closed premature and another F.D account was paid by way of transfer to SB A/c of the complainant on maturity. The dispute arose on the remaining three accounts which still remain unpaid as per the claim of the complainant. The complainant claims the fixed deposit accounts were opened on 31.07.2003 for Rs 30,000/- each out of which A/c No- 0129201332503 was closed premature as the complainant was in dire need of money and another account bearing No- 012920133257 was matured on 31.07.2006, the maturity value of which was transferred/credited to his SB A/c No- 01190013326 so as to enable the complainant to draw the amount. Simultaneously other 3 accounts were also matured on 31.07.2006 but the OP did not credit the maturity amount of those fixed deposit certificates to his SB account which is a clear violation of prevailing provisions and settled position of law. The said act of OP attributes to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. On the other hand the counsel for OP submitted that the maturity value of one account has been credited to the education loan account of the complainant. The complainant vehemently opposed the submission of the OP in stating that the complainant was of 51 years old in the year 2003 and at this age no one can avail any education loan to pursue higher study and as such the question of availing education loan by the complainant does not arise. It is also a fact that the F.D accounts in discussion were not pledged to any loan account by the complainant nor has signed any letter of lien in favour of the bank authorizing OP to credit the maturity proceeds to any loan account of the complainant. As such the plea of crediting the maturity value of the F.Ds to the education loan without the consent of the complainant is illegal and such act of OP is also arbitrary which should not happen in banking business particularly snatching away the hard earned investment of the complainant.
2. That the OP bank submitted during hearing of the case that after crediting a portion of maturity proceeds of F.D A/c No- 0129001332500, to education loan account No- 01593017385, the residual amount together with the maturity proceeds of F.D account No- 0129001335201 were kept in a F.D account No- 0129201332608. In this manner the OP bank went on renewing the F.D account time to time and finally renewed on 15.09.2015 for an amount of Rs 1,11,108/- outstanding in the name of the complainant. On the other hand complainant opposed the submission in stating that he has neither authorized or empowered the OP to renew the F.Ds on maturity nor have executed any power to credit maturity value of the F.Ds to any loan account and nor has pledged the F.Ds against any loan account. Hence such action of OP attributes to unfair trade practice as the OP has appropriated the maturity proceeds of F.Ds at its sweet will and arbitrarily. Hence the maturity value of three fixed deposits are claimed to be credited to the SB account of the complainant together with interest at the rate applicable to fixed deposits.
3. That as regards the objection of OP on the point of limitation, it is stated by the complainant that the OP bank was requested orally in many times who assured to intimate the complainant in time when it would be necessary but did not intimate anything about the F.D accounts nor even felt it wise to intimate the complainant about appropriation of maturity proceeds of two numbers of F.D accounts which was disclosed when OP submitted written version. Furthermore the OP went on reinvesting the maturity value of two numbers of F.Ds without consent or any standing instruction of the complainant. Such action of the OP amounts to deficiency of service and the transactions without the consent of complainant amounts to unfair trade practice. It is also a fact that although the OP has objected all the allegations of the complainant but failed to substantiate with proper evidence. OP has neither proved with evidence that the complainant has availed any loan from the bank nor could prove with evidence that the complainant has issued standing instruction to the bank for renewal of the F.Ds on maturity.
4. From the above analysis of facts and perusal of the materials submitted by the parties it is observed that the OP has raised objection on the points of allegations made in the complaint but failed to adduce any evidence in support of points of objection. As the complainant has raised the dispute after 9 years from the date of maturity his claim for adjudication of case seems to be vague. The complainant could have raised the complaint before the OP within a month or two after maturity of F.D accounts but did not do so which is presumed to be intentional. On the other hand the OP did not adhere to the principle and did everything monopoly without caring for the prevailing provisions of rules and, therefore, has caused deficiency of service. Hence both the complainant and OP are equally responsible and have equally contributed to this dispute.
In view of above facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get the privilege under benefit of doubt and therefore it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed partly against the OP. The OP is directed to release the maturity value of all three F.Ds (pending for release) with interest at the applicable rate within a period of 30 days, without fail. OP is exempted from cost and compensation as prayed by the complainant.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 31st January, 2019 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
