Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/461

Sunil Sood - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Manish Mittal Adv.

08 Sep 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:461 dated 27.09.2019.                                                         Date of decision: 08.09.2022. 

 

Sunil Sood HUF through Karta Sh. Sunil Sood son of Late Sh. Prem Raj Sood, resident of House No.688, Church Road, Civil Lines, Ludhiana.                                                                                                     ..…Complainant

 

Dena Bank, now merged with Bank of Baroda, Bharat Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana through its Chief Manager.                                                                                                                                                               …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP                           :         Sh. Varun Verma, Advocate.

 

 ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that he invested a sum of Rs.39,85,654/-  in a fixed deposit in the name of Prem Raj Sood HUF which was operated by the complainant being Karta. The maturity value of the deposit was Rs.45,35,800/-  with maturity date 28.05.2019. The complainant approached the OP as he wanted that the amount of maturity of fixed deposit be transferred in his account. One lady official of the OP bank insisted the complainant not to discontinue the FDR and advised him to get the same renewed or at least the complainant should invest some part of the maturity amount in another fixed deposit with the bank. The complainant told the OP that he was in need of money as he had to make certain payment in connection with a land deal. As the said official obtained the signature of the complainant on the FDR and assured that the maturity amount will be deposited in his savings account on 30.05.2019, the complainant came to know that a lesser amount has been credited in his account on account of maturity of his fixed deposit. He went to the bank and enquired from the same lady official who told the complainant that since the fixed deposit was got encashed prematurely on 27.05.2019 i.e. one day before the date of maturity on 28.05.2019, the lesser amount was credited in his account which was Rs.88,000/- less than the maturity amount. The complainant requested the OP to correct the error committed by them and to make full payment of the maturity amount but to no avail. As a matter of fact, the complainant never withdrew the amount and if the complainant was in urgent need of money, he would have withdrew the amount on 27.05.2019 itself. The complainant got served a legal notice dated 15.07.2019 through his counsel but to no avail. Hence the complaint. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.88,000/- wrongly deducted by the OP bank with interest @12% per annum along with compensation and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written filed on behalf of OP, it has been pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to the OP bank, the complainant had a fixed deposit in the name of Prem Raj Sood HUF being operated by the complainant as Karta vide account No.115566026012 for a sum of Rs.39,85,654/- which was to mature on 28.05.2019. However, on 27.05.2019, the complainant visited the office of the OP bank and requested for encashment of the FDR amount as he was in urgent need of money. The official of the OP Bank informed the complainant that date of maturity was 28.05.2019 and there would be deduction if the fixed deposit was encashed before the date of maturity 28.05.2019 but the complainant insisted that he was in need of money as he had to purchase some property situated at Pakhowal Road. The complainant himself requested to encash the fixed deposit and transferred the amount in his account. Thus, it was only on the request and instructions of the complainant that the FDR was encashed and the amount was transferred in the account of the complainant. It was clearly explained to the complainant that as per the guidelines of the bank he would not get the maturity amount if the FDR was encashed prior to the maturity date.  The other averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

 

3.                The parties have not formally led any evidence in this case. However, the complainant attached his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4.

4.                The OPs have already placed on record affidavit Ex. RA along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2.

5.                In this case, none has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 18.08.2021. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

6.                Primarily, the case of the complainant is that he had obtained a fixed deposit of Rs.39,85,654/-  with a maturity value of Rs.45,35,800/-. The deposit was to mature on 28.05.2019. The complainant has further claimed that he approached the OP for the release of the FDR deposit as he was in need of money to make payment in a land deal. The lady official assured the complainant that on maturity the amount of the FDR would be deposited in a savings account. Later on, the complainant came to know that the FDR was encashed premature on 27.05.2019 instead of 28.05.2019 with a result that a sum of Rs.88,000/- less was deposited in his account on account of maturity. The complainant lodged a written complaint in this regard and the OP gave evasive reply dated 01.06.2019. In fact, the complainant never got the FDR encashed any time prior it its maturity.

7.                On the contrary, in the written statement, the OPs have categorically mentioned that the complainant visited the OP branch on 27.05.2019 and desired to get the FDR account closed as he was in urgent need of money. The complainant was apprised that the maturity date was 28.05.2019 and if the deposit was pre-maturely encashed any time prior to 28.05.2019, there will be deduction of some amount but the complainant insisted that he was in need of money as he has to purchase some land at Pakhowal Road. The complainant further authorized the OPs to encash the deposit and on his request and instructions, the amount was transferred in the complainant’s account. The complainant has not filed any rejoinder or replication to controvert these facts pleaded by the OP bank in the written statement. It is well settled that all those facts which are not controverted are deemed to have been admitted as correct. Moreover, the complainant has signed the deposit receipt Ex. R1 authorizing the OP bank to encash the deposit. The statement Ex. R2 further shows that the deposit was encashed on 27.05.2019 and the maturity amount of Rs.43,97,532/- was credited into the account of the complainant. It is a matter of common knowledge that if the deposit is prematurely encashed, it entails some penal pre-mature encashment charges. Therefore, no case of deficiency of service is made out on the part of the OPs.

8.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

9.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sunil Sood Vs Dena Bank                                    CC/19/461

Present:       None for the complainant.

                   Sh. Varun Verma, Advocate for the OP.

 

                   None turned up for complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant since 18.08.2021.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complain fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.09.2022.

Gobind Ram.