Oriental Bank of Commerce, a body corporate, constituted under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of undertaking) Act 40 of 1980, having its Head Office at Harsha Bhawan, E-Block, Connaught Place, New Delhi now shifted to Corporate Office, Plot No.5, Institutional Area, Sector 32, Gurgaon and amongst other branches a branch at Sector 8-C, Chandigarh through Sh. Raj Kumar Khindri, Assistant General Manager.

                        .…Appellants/  Opposite Party No.1

                                                Vs.

1.     Dev Raj Mahajan, r/o Flat No.9, GD Rail Vihar, S4 MDC, Panchkula.

2.         Kamlesh Mahajan  w/o Sh. Dev Raj Mahajan , r/o Flat No.9, GD Rail Vihar, S4 MDC            Panchkula.

                                                                                    …. Respondents/complainants

 BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, (Retd.) PRESIDENT

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:     Sh. Sumeer Bector, Adv. for the appellant.

                        Sh. Dev Raj Mahajan, Respondent No.1 in person and on behalf of his wife respondent No.2

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

            This is an appeal filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.1 against the order, dated 13.9.2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as District Forum only) vide which, it allowed the complaint in the following manner;

In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed and OP No.1 is directed to pay rest of the amount of two FDRs i.e. Rs.11,474/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9.75% from the date of maturity.  The OP No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony & harassment and litigation costs. 

            This order be complied with by OP No.1 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, OP No.1 shall be liable to refund the awarded amount i.e. Rs.11,474/- to the complainants along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of maturity, till its realization, besides Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

2                                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainants had obtained two FDRs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each on 14.1.2002, from Opposite Party  No.2 for 10 years with the maturity value of Rs.26,203/- each. It was stated that later on, Opposite Party No.2 merged with Opposite Party No.1, and all the assets and liabilities were taken over by the latter. It was further stated that when the complainants went to Opposite Party No.1, after maturity of the FDRs, on 14.1.2012, to their utter surprise it (Opposite Party No.1) only paid them Rs.20,466/- each instead of maturity amount of the FDRs i.e. Rs.26,203/- each. It was further stated that thereafter, the complainants approached the   Opposite Parties,  and requested them to make the balance payment of the two FDRs, amounting to Rs.11,474/-, but Opposite Party No.1, flatly refused to make the balance payment. Hence, this complaint was filed.

3                    Opposite Party-1 in its reply, admitted that the complainants had obtained two FDRs of Rs.10,000/- each on 14.1.2002 for 10 years from Opposite Party No.2.   Thereafter, Opposite Party No.2 merged with Opposite Party  No.1. Opposite Party  No.1, therafter took over all the assets and liabilities of Opposite Party  No.2. The complainants received the maturity value of the said FDRs as Rs.20,466/- each instead of Rs.26,203/- each. It was clarified that this maturity value was generated on the basis of interest payable by Opposite Party  No.1 as these FDRs were obtained before the merger of Opposite Party No.2 with Opposite Party  No.1. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party  paid the accurate interest on the said FDRs as per the notification issued by the Ministry of Finance dated 13.8.2004. It was further stated that OP No.1 also informed all the respective customers of Global Trust Bank Limited, vide letter dated 13.9.2004, about the rate of interest. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the answering Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations of the complaint were denied being wrong.

4                    Despite due service Opposite Party  No.2, did not appear, as a result whereof he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2012.

5                    The parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6                    After hearing the Complainant No.1 in person,  Counsel for Opposite Party No.1, and, on going through the evidence and record, the District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated in the opening para of this order

7                    Aggrieved by the order, passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, has filed the instant appeal. 

8                    We have heard Counsel for the appellant and Sh. Dev Raj Mahajan, respondent No.1 in person and on behalf of respondent No.2 and, have perused the record, carefully.

9                    Before deciding the case on merits, we require to decide the application for additional evidence, moved by the appellant, alongwith the appeal for admitting into evidence various news items pertaining to merger of Global Trust Bank with Oriental Bank of Commerce (appellant). It was stated, in the application, that the same were published between July 2004 to December, 2004, and, as such, the same were essential for the just decision of the case.

10               On the other hand Mr. Dev Raj Mahajan respondent No.1 submitted that he and his wife did not want to file reply to the application for additional evidence.

11               After hearing both the parties and, on going through the record, we are of the considered view that since the appellant did not produce the aforesaid documents, before the District Forum, though available, at that time, therefore it could not be allowed to fill up the lacuna, at the appellate stage, seeking the admission thereof by way of additional evidence. Even otherwise, these news items do not affect the merits of the case, because mere publishing the notices in the news papers, did not amount to due notice to the complainant, until and unless it was proved that individual notice was served upon the respondents/complainants. Hence the application for additional evidence is dismissed.

12               Coming to the merits of the case, the Counsel for the appellant submitted that he paid correct and accurate rate of interest, as per the directives of the Reserve Bank of India and as per the notification dated 13.8.2004 of amalgamation of Global Trust Bank with the appellant. It was further submitted that the said notification amounted to be a public notice as the respondents being customers of the Bank were deemed to be aware of the same. Hence there was no deficiency on the part of the appellant.

13               On the hand respondent No.1, in person, argued that the complainants/respondents had not received any notice, regarding the change of rate of interest. He further submitted that had they received such a notice, they would have themselves terminated the aforesaid FDRs, in no time, and invested their valuable money somewhere else where they were supposed to get more interest, than the one, which was being granted by the appellant. Hence there was deficiency, on the part of the appellant, and the District Forum rightly passed the order.

14               Admittedly, as per notification dated 13.8.2004 (Annexure R-1), the Global  Trust Bank Limited/Opposite Party No.2, merged with the Oriental Bank of Commerce/appellant. The appellant bank took over all the assets and liabilities of the Global  Trust Bank Limited/Opposite Party No.2. As per contention of the Counsel for the appellant, the appellant bank informed the respective customers of Global Trust Bank Limited vide letter dated 13.9.2004 (R-2) about the rate of interest which shall be applicable to their deposits. Whereas the contention of the respondents/complainants was  that they never received any intimation regarding the change of rate of interest. A perusal of the records, reveals that no document was produced, on record, by the appellant, regarding the delivery of the aforesaid letter dated 13.9.2004 (Annexure R-2) vide which it claimed to have intimated the respondents/complainants regarding the change of interest,. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the contention of the appellant, is falsified, that it intimated the respondents/complainants, individually. Whereas, as per the RBI Guidelines, it was the bounden duty of the appellant bank to intimate the respondents/complainants regarding the change of rate of interest. Hence the appellant/Opposite Party No.1, was deficient, in rendering service and it was liable to pay interest to the respondents/complainants as per the rate of interest mentioned in the FDRs issued by the Global Trust Bank Limited/Opposite Party No.2 prior to its amalgamation.. The District Forum, after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, rightly allowed the complaint, and the same does not warrant any interference, being just and fair.

15               In view of the above, we do not find any merit, in this appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16               Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.