BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No.324 of 2014 Date of Institution: 2.9.2014
Date of Decision: 23.12.2014
Parmeshvari Devi, aged about 57 years, widow of Late Ram Kumar, resident of VPO Jand Wala Hanuwanta, Tehsil Abohar District Fazilka.
....... Complainant
Versus
The Fazilka Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Opposite Grain Market,
Abohar, Tehsil Abohar, District Fazilka, through its Branch Manager.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * *
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Ashok Kumar Raheja, Advocate
For the opposite party : Sh. Neel Rattan, Advocate
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
S. Gyan Singh, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was having FDR bearing account No.402.104.6572 with the opposite party. The said account was opened on 4.7.2011 by depositing a sum of Rs.50,000/-
C.C. No.324 of 2014 \\2//
for a period of one year. It was to be paid on 4.7.2012 on its maturity amounting to Rs.55,354/-. The same was renewed on its maturity for the maturity amount of Rs.55,354/-, which was to be matured on 4.7.2013 with an amount of Rs.61,279/-. Further it has been pleaded that as per rules and regulations of the opposite party, whenever the said amount is claimed from the bank, the bank paid the interest accrued thereon as per the banking rules and regulations on the day of withdrawals. Further it has been pleaded that husband of the complainant was working with the opposite party and he died on 22.9.2013 during the service. The complainant, during the life time of her husband, was not requiring the said amount of FDR and therefore she did not approach the bank for withdrawal of the same. After the death of her husband, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested it to release the principal amount alongwith interest on the above said F.D.R., but the opposite party did not release the above said amount on the ground that the husband of the complainant, who was previously Branch Manager of the said bank, had misappropriated the funds of the customers of the opposite party and therefore the bank is entitled to withheld the amount of the said FDR alongwith interest accrued thereon. Pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to release the amount of the F.D.R. alongwith interest accrued
C.C. No.324 of 2014 \\3//
thereon. Further a sum of Rs.20,000/- has been claimed as compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed its written reply to the complaint, wherein it has been pleaded that the instant complaint has become infructuous as the payment of the F.D.R amounting to Rs.61,279/- has already been made on 25.9.2014. The above said amount was released to the complainant on her written request. As per banking rules and regulations, the interest is not required to be paid till the date of payment, rather, interest is required to be paid till the date of maturity and the interest of back period could only be paid in case of renewal of F.D.R. for further period. It has been further pleaded that the complainant has never approached the opposite party with regard to release of F.D.R amount before 25.9.2014 and she approached the opposite party on 25.9.2014 and requested in writing for payment of maturity value of the F.D.R. in question, which was released to the complainant by the opposite party immediately. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the
C.C. No.324 of 2014 \\4//
other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party tendered into evidence Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/2 and closed evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record.
6. The grievance of the complainant is that she had purchased an FDR from the opposite party bank on 4.7.2011 Ex.C-2 by paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- with its date of maturity as 4.7.2012 having maturity amount of Rs.55,354/-, which was further renewed on 7.9.2012 vide FDR Ex.C-3 with its date of maturity as 4.7.2013 having maturity value of Rs.61,279/-, but the opposite party has not released the maturity amount of the said FDR alongwith interest accrued thereon. The opposite party has pleaded that the maturity amount of the FDR in question i.e. Rs.61,279/- has already been paid to the complainant on 25.9.2014. The opposite party has also placed on the file copy of application dated 25.9.2014 as Ex.OP-1/1 moved by the complainant to the opposite party for making payment of the FDR in question. A perusal of photo copy of Register placed on the file by the opposite party as Ex.OP-1/2 reveals that the maturity amount of the FDR in question i.e. Rs.61,279/- has been paid by the opposite party vide Demand Draft No.918362 on 25.9.2014, which has duly been received by the complainant under her signatures without any protest. No evidence has
C.C. No.324 of 2014 \\5//
been placed on the file by the complainant that the FDR in question was to be further renewed by the opposite party automatically on the date of its maturity on 4.7.2013 or the opposite party was liable to pay interest on the maturity amount of the FDR in question from the date of its maturity till its actual payment, even if the complainant had not approached the opposite party for release of maturity amount of the FDR in question on the date of its maturity. Even no evidence has been produced by the complainant that the opposite party ever refused to release the maturity amount of the FDR in question to the complainant, as has been alleged by the complainant. The maturity amount of the FDR in question has already been received by the complainant without any protest. Therefore, no case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party is made out. The complainant is not entitled to any relief claimed for. Therefore, the present complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced 23.12.2014
(Gurpartap Singh Brar)
President
(Gyan Singh )
Member
