CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.290/2011
SHRI MANISH GUPTA
FLAT NO.2, W-56,
GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
VS.
ICICI BANK
NEHRU PLACE
NEW DELHI-110019
ICICI BANK
REGD. ADDRESS:-
LAND MARK RACE COUSE CIRCLE,
VADODARA-390007(GUJARAT)
………….. RESPONDENT
Date of Order:08.07.2015
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav – President
The case of the complainant is that he is differently abled person and is maintaining one Saving Bank account No.629401019623. There exists banker and customer good relationship between the complainant and OP and in terms of said relationship on 21.7.2007 complainant issued a cheque bearing No.772510 in favour of OP for a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- with the instruction to cause a fixed deposit of this amount for a period of three years. OP bank confirmed that FDR shall be created. The said amount was debited from the saving account of the complainant therefore complainant was confident that FDR has been created. In 2010, complaint requested bank to credit the FDR amount in the his saving account but to his surprise, bank informed him that the said amount has been put into suspense account w.e.f. 21.7.2007. The bank refused to make payment of any interest and rather threatened to recover charges for keeping the said amount in its suspense account. Further it is stated that if the complainant did not accept the sum of Rs.1,95,000/-, the same will be transferred to RBI and he will not get the money back. Accordingly complainant accepted the amount on 12.4.2010 without interest. Complainant has stated that it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,23,760/- plus interest upto settlement of claim.
OP in the written arguments took the plea that instant complaint is perfect example of figment of imagination wherein the complainant has made optimum utilization of his mental faculties to carve out an imaginary story wherein allegedly he had issued a cheque bearing No.772510 to OP for an amount of Rs. 1,95,000/- with the instruction to cause fixed deposit of aforesaid amount for a period of three years without placing on record any document to substantiate the aforesaid contention. It is stated that in order to create FDR it is incumbent upon the person desiring of such FD to apply for the same in the concerned bank wherein he maintains an operative account by submitting a duly filled FD form and upon the submission of the same to the bank and acknowledgment in the form of FDR is returned by the bank to the applicant. Applicant in the said forum delivers specific instruction to the bank as to the period for which the said amount has to be kept in FD. Type of fixed deposit cumulative wherein interest is accumulated and is paid upon maturity alongwith the principal or traditional FD where interest is paid monthly or quarterly basis and upon maturity only principal is paid.
It is stated that the complaint is barred by time as the cause of action arose on 21.7.2007 and the complaint filed on 07.07.2011. It is further stated that complainant has closed the saving account on 11.4.2009 and subsequently it was OP bank which had contacted the complainant about an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- lying with the OP bank. That amount has already been returned to complainant on 12.4.2010. It is stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP bank.
We have heard Ld. counsel for parties and gone through evidence filed by the parties.
It is not in dispute that complaint had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- to OP and the said amount was debited from the account of the complainant. There is no question of concoction of any story on the part of complainant. There is no reason to disbelief the complainant that he issued this cheque for creation of FDR and once the amount has been debited from the account of complainant, he was fully assured that the FDR has been created. There was no reason on the part of OP bank to keep that amount in suspense account for almost three years. It is not necessary that any form is filled up for creation of FDR. Once a cheque has been issued and instruction has been given to the bank to create FDR, then the FDR is created. As already stated if the amount has been debited from the account of the account holder then account holder has every reason to believe that FDR has been created. Assuming for the sake of argument that the bank has no instruction to create FDR even then the bank should have contacted the complainant as they have debited an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- from the account of the complainant and there was no reason for the bank to keep this amount in suspense account for three years. Nothing prevented the bank to credit the said amount into the account of complainant and inform the complainant about the amount lying with them. We are of the firm opinion that this is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
So far as contention of OP that the complaint is barred by limitation as cause of action arose on 21.7.2007 and present complaint filed on 07.07.2011 is concerned, the same has no basis. In fact the cause of action arose in 2010 when complainant came to know that the amount has not been kept in FDR and rather the same kept in suspense account. The complaint is very much within limitation.
OP is directed to treat the amount of Rs.1,95,000/- as kept in fixed deposit for the period from 21.7.2007 till 12.4.2010 and shall pay the interest accruing on that FDR for that period. Apart from that OP is also directed to Rs.3000/- as compensation and Rs.3000/- towards litigation expenses.
Let the order be complied within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(EHTESHAM-UL-HAQ) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
