Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that complainant Chiranjeev Aggarwal is nominee as well as natural legal heir of Late Brij Mohan Aggarwal. So, the complainant has legal right to file the present complaint. Further submitted that one FDR no.235421 was issued by Opposite Party on dated 31.03.2017 for the period of 60 months with rate of interest 6.5 % per annum in faovur Brij Mohan Aggarwal and the maturity date of the FDR is 31.03.2022. Further alleged that the above said FDR was ‘non transferable’ and ‘not to be pledged’. Unfortunately, Brij Mohan Aggarwal expired on 09.02.2018 before the maturity of said FDR. After completion of the maturity period of the FDR, the complainant visited the Opposite Party to receive the maturity amount, but the Opposite Party refused to make any payment to complainant. Then the complainant served a legal notice upon the Opposite Party, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to make the payment of Rs.1,38,044/- with interest against the FDR no.235421.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment as well deficiency in service.

c)       To pay Rs.10,000/- as travel expenses and pay Rs.15,500/- as litigation expenses.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Notice of the complaint was duly issued to Opposite Party, but despite due service of notice, Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through any representative, hence Opposite Party is proceeded against exparte.

3.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C6.

4.       We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and also gone through the record.

5.       It is proved on record that father of the complainant namely Brij Mohan Aggarwal has fixed deposit account bearing no. 50300193093280 with Opposite Parties for the period of 60 months and maturity the said FDR was 31.03.2022 (Ex.C3) and the death certificate (Ex.C4) is evident of the fact that before the maturity of the said FDR father of the complainant expired on 09.02.2018. The document duly issued by HDFC Bank (attached with Ex.C6) is evident of the fact that complainant is the legal nominee under the said FDR, the contents of that document is reproduced as under:-

“This is to certify that Mr. Brij Mohan Aggarwal s/o Sh.Roshal Lal Aggarwal, r/o H.No.195, Ward No.14, Jawahar Nagar, Moga-142001 is holding Fixed Deposit No.50300193093280.

Mr. Charanjeev Aggarwl is the legal nominee of this fixed deposit who is so of Mr.Brij Mohan Aggarwal.”

It is also proved on record vide legal notice (Ex.C5) that after the date of maturity of the FDR in question, the complainant approached the Opposite Party for the release of the maturity amount; which the Opposite Party failed to pay. The grievance of the complainant is that till date the Opposite Party has not released the maturity amount of the FDR in question, which forced the complainant to file the present complaint.

6.       On the other hand, despite service of notice, Opposite Party failed to appear before this Commission either in person or through any representative. So, the evidence so produced by the complainant has gone unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence. In this way, the Opposite party has impliedly admitted the correctness of the allegations made in the complaint. Also the allegations made in the complaint are supported by the duly sworn affidavit of the complainant.

7.       We are of the considered view that despite making requests by complainant and despite issuing legal notice, Opposite Party failed to make the maturity amount of the FDR in question to complainant (who is legally entitled for the maturity amount in question being nominee), which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.

8.       From the discussion above, we partly allow the present complaint with a direction to complainant to provide his account details to Opposite Party within 5 days from the receipt of copy of the order and thereafter Opposite Party is directed to release the amount of the FDR in question in the account of the complainant next within 30 days from the receipt of the account details from the complainant. Opposite Party is also directed to pay compository cost of Rs.5,000/-(Five Thousand only) to be paid to complainant as compensation for deficient services and litigation expenses. In case, the Opposite Party failed to make the payment to complainant within stipulated period as per the order above, they are further burdened with additional cost of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission