DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Consumer Complaint Case No: 732 of 2010]

--------------------------------

              Date of Institution : 11.11.2010

                   Date  of Decision   : 12.10.2012

--------------------------------

Varinder S. Lamba, R/o Kothi No. 2418, Phase 10, Mohali – 160062.

                                     ---Complainant

V E R S U S

ICICI Bank, SCO No. 485-486, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh.

   ---Opposite Party

BEFORE:  SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA           PRESIDENT

         MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA             MEMBER

         SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU     MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for Complainant.

None for Opposite Party.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.       Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the ground that the Complainant originally held an account with Bank of Madhura in early 2000 and while this Bank merged with the ICICI Bank, all his accounts too was transferred to ICICI Bank. The Complainant in addition to holding a non-resident Indian (NRI) and non-resident ordinary (NRO) account also held some fixed deposits in foreign currencies (FCNR) and Indian rupees with standing instructions to the Bank to renew the tenure on maturity. On 23.3.2000, Complainant deposited 1398.51 USD for a period of 03 years in a fixed deposit with a maturing value of 1686.47 USD on 23.3.2003, with the then Bank of Madhura under FCNR No. 19307. Copy of the fixed deposit receipt is annexed as Folio No.01. The origin of this FCNR forms the basis of his instructions dated 18.3.2000 vide his letter to Bank of Madhura. Copy of which is annexed as Folio NO.02.     

         The Complainant claims that he has been writing to the ICICI Bank since 2003 regarding the whereabouts of this fixed deposit amount, but has not received any reply from their side; the Complainant during each of his visits to India has been making rounds of the ICICI Bank, in order to locate his money lying with them. The Complainant further claims that he is entitled to interest, since the date of deposit of the amount, as well as the original amount deposited as fixed deposit.  

         The Complainant having exhausted himself claims that he harassed on account of no reply from the side of the Opposite Party and seeks Redressal of his grievance on account of deficiency in service, claiming relief of full amount of his fixed deposit, along with interest, since its inception, and a reasonable compensation for the harassment, mental stress and wastage of precious time.

    The complaint of the complainant is duly supported by his detailed affidavit.

2.       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking their version of the case.

3.       The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the Complainant be directed to place on record the original of the alleged FD receipt/ FCNR which the Complainant is claiming under. As per the Bank records there is no record in respect of the issuance of the said FDR/ FCNR, in order to verify the document the original FD receipt/ FCNR is important, as there is no record available with the Bank regarding the issuance of the FCNR in question. The Opposite Party also claims that the claim of the Complainant is barred by limitation.    

         On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the answering Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.  

         The reply of the Opposite Party is duly supported by detailed affidavit of Sh. Inderdeep Singh Manager, ICICI Bank Limited.  

4.       As the Opposite Party failed to appear on the last date of hearing i.e. 29.09.2012, the arguments of the counsel for the Complainant were heard. Hence, in the absence of the Opposite Party, we have proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987, read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), vide order dated 28.09.2012.

5.       Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Complainant, we have come to the following conclusions.

6.       The complaint file by the Complainant in the year 2010 is claimed by the Opposite Party to be barred by limitation as the basic issue involved in the present complaint is with regard to the fixed deposit purported to have been made by the Complainant in the year 2000 and was to mature in the year 2003, after completion of 36 months period. We are of the concerted view that as the money lying with the Opposite Party as claimed by the Complainant on maturity of the fixed deposit, since the year 2003, belongs to the Complainant, and are his assets, as this money has continuously accrued interest on every single day, during this period, till the filing of the complaint, hence, we feel that there is a continuous cause of action in favour of the Complainant qua the Opposite Party. Hence, the objection of the present complaint being barred by limitation is ignored. 

7.       The Complainant while preferring this present complaint, against the Opposite Party, has also annexed few other documents, which are his communication initially with Bank of Madhura, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, the same is dated 18.3.2000, through which the Complainant had registered his desire of continuing the fixed deposit of his money for subsequent term and at the same time, also create a fixed deposit of the interest amount that may have accrued during the fixed tenure. During the course of arguments, the Complainant had also disclosed that he had simultaneously continued with another fixed deposit with the Opposite Party and this fact though not mentioned in the complaint, is established from the documents as well as the letters annexed with the complaint.        

8.       The two different fixed deposits made with the Opposite Party are found to be under the FCNR ID of 3414 the maturity due date of which was 30.4.2002 and the amount deposited in this account was $7343.50 USD; whereas, the 2^nd FCNR term deposit bearing ID No. 17-103063 the due date of maturity of which was 23.3.2003 and the amount under this ID deposited with the Opposite Party was $1686.47 USD. The Complainant in his communications admits to have received the amount due towards him under FCNR No. 3414 and has also annexed copy of a Cheque amounting to Rs.1,73,902/- at Folio No. 14. Thus, the Complainant has rightly established his identity as a bona fide consumer of the Opposite Party. At the same time, the silence on the part of the Opposite Party with regard to his different communications since the year 2003 about the FCNR No 17-103063 is highly objectionable.         

9.       The Complainant has rightly established the fact that the FCNR deposit with the Opposite Party under Deposit Account ID 597 which was originally made with the Opposite Party in the year 1997 and was to mature on 19.3.2000 through receipt Annexure as Folio No. 12 and it was this fixed deposit which the Complainant desired to continue with the Opposite Party through his letter dated 18.3.2000 (Folio No.02). Hence, the Opposite Party while admitting to the fixed deposit made with them by the Complainant in the year 2002 maturing in the year 2005 and releasing the money on its maturity could not be believed that they did not have any record of the fixed deposit in question, claimed by the Complainant. The Opposite Party has failed to bring on record even a single piece of paper nor they have even admitted of having maintained the account of the Complainant with them, while there is a cogent poof of the release of money through cheque in the year 2005. This entire episode compels us to believe that there is something more than what the Opposite Party has tried to claim through their vague reply.  Even the objection of the Opposite Party that the Complainant be asked to bring on record the original of FCNR deposit would have serve no purpose, because the entire details that could establish the very genuinety of the claim are mentioned in the receipt no. 19307 dated 23.3.2000 (Folio NO.01).  In the given situation, a simple denial by the Opposite Party carries no force and the same is ignored.  

10.      The Complainant has brought on record as many as 09 (nine) different communications from Folio No.03 to Folio No.11 spanning over a period of 07 years i.e. from 2003 to 2010, and of these communications, some of them even bears the official stamp of the Opposite Party, confirming their receipts. However, the Opposite Party has failed to bring on record even a single reply that they had made against any of these representations of the Complainant. Hence, it is amply clear that the Opposite Party while being maintaining a deafening silence on this issue is only trying to ignore the claim of the Complainant, which is nothing, but a gross deficiency in service in service.    

11.      The Complainant while leading additional evidence has filed two affidavits each of himself as well as that of his brother Devinder Singh Lamba, substantiating the claims as made in his present complaint. Hence, the averments of the Complainant are fortified by this additional evidence.    

12.      Thus, the present complaint deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed qua it. The Opposite Party is directed, to:-

[a]  To release the amount claimed by the Complainant under the FCNR Term Deposit Receipt No. 19307 (Folio No.01), along with the interest at the rate of 6.25% per annum mentioned in it, from the due date of its deposit i.e. 23.03.2000, till it is paid, which is the actual entitlement of the Complainant;

[b]  To pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental harassment to the Complainant;

13.      The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, it shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 12 above, after the expiry of 45 days period, till it is paid.  

14.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced  

12^th October, 2012

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER