Delhi

StateCommission

FA/472/2013

JETINDER PAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD. & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 22.09.2015

Appeal No. 472/13

In the matter of:

Tejinder Pal Singh Oberoi,

WZ-208, Street No.15,

G-Block, Hari Nagar,

New Dlhi-110058.                                                                     …..........Appellant

Versus

1. Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

J-2/4, B.K. Dutt Market,

Rajouri Garden,

New Delhi-110027.

 

2. Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

D-1A/A, 10, Near Aditya Apartments,

Janak Puri,

New Delhi-110058.                                                      …......Respondents

                                                                

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

OP Gupta Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 OP Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1. The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 15.03.2013 passed by District Forum-III in case No.494/08.  The appellant has pleaded that he opened a Saving Bank Account with Bank of Punjab, B.K. Dutt Market, Rajouri Garden, Delhi in late 90s and number of FDs were made by him which were linked with saving bank account.  He operated the said account till 29.11.2003.  All said FDs were put on auto-revalidation mode and hard copies were kept in safe custody of the branch. While revalidating other FDs under said revalidation mode on 14.08.2001, FD No.113603000000920 for Rs.84,000/- was not revalidated. That FD was not included in the certificate issued by the bank on 15.11.2001.  A new branch of Bank of Punjab was opened at B-Block, Janank Puri, Delhi.  The said bank has now taken over by respondent i.e. HDFC bank.  On the advice of the then branch manager, he gave an application for transfer of his saving bank account with Rajouri Garden Branch to newly opened branch at Janak Puri alongwith all FDs linked with his saving fund account. All his FDs but for one FD for Rs.84,000/- (supra) were transferred in December, 2003.  The bank did not inform him that his FD was neither transferred nor revalidated automatically.

 

2. There was no reason for bank to withhold one FD for around seven years.  Every year holding and different type of bank account and FD on individual norms are properly audited and clients are individually contacted. Bank system failed to detect FD of Rs.84,000/-for a very long period from 2001 to 2007. The appellant prayed for manually calculating interest from 14.08.2001 till date of acceptance of appeal, issue fresh FDR for the entire amount, take signed forms 15H, interest rate may be taken as per maximum prevailing rate applicable to senior citizen as appellant is 60+.  He has also prayed for penalty of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.

 

3. We have gone through the material on record and heard arguments.  The order of the Ld. District Forum reveals that complainant pleaded that on receiving telephonic communication from bank regarding his FDR in question overdue since 14.08.2001, he visited the bank on 21.07.2008. He was informed that FD was not with the bank.  He met branch manager Mr. Gaurav Gogia who asked appellant to execute indemnity bond.  He did the needful and after four months he received revalidated FDR for Rs.1,01,039/- with period of deposit of one year three months and 15 days. Despite asking for interest on compounding basis at the rate prevailing for FDRs, the bank revalidated the FDRs with saving bank interest @3.5%.  Apart from that TDS was deducted from revalidated FDR. Had he been informed before revalidating FDR, he would have made complaint before the higher authorities and would not have extended the FDR.  The action of the bank was in violation of the policy circulated on 12.12.2007.  He made complaint to Bank Ombudsman who held that there was no deficiency on the part of the bank and closed the matter.  Thereafter, he filed a complaint in Consumer Forum.

 

4. The respondent bank filed a reply stating that it acted in accordance with the guidelines of RBI, FDR rate of interest on compounding basis is not applicable on overdue FD.  It denied that bank officials gave any assurance that FD rate on compounding basis would be given.  TDS was deducted as per prescribed norms.

 

5. The Ld. District Forum came to the conclusion that vide letter dated 14.02.2002 the complainant requested for transfer of maturity proceeds of his 22 FDRs mentioned therein.  Complainant again wrote a letter dated 02.01.2003 for transferring three FDRs mentioned therein. In neither of the two letters, the present FDR find place. Thus, there was no request from the complainant to transfer this FDR also.

 

6. We find ourself in complete agreement with finding of the Ld. District Forum that there being no request from the complainant to transfer this FDR, there is no deficiency on the part of the bank. Rather it was case of carelessness on the part of complainant.  It was for the complainant to keep account of his FDR and watch that the the same are either renewed or transferred to saving bank account.  He cannot sleep for seven years and then came forward complaining that bank was negligent. TDS was to be deducted as per income tax law.  Certificate for the same was issued by the bank.  Complainant could have sought refund of TDS from income tax department after filing income tax return, if he was not liable to pay income tax.

 

7. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. Appeal fails and is dismissed.

          A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

          (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)