Case No. 161/2022   

IN THE MATTER OF

Smt. Santosh Singhal W/o Late Chandra Prakas Singhal R/o Sarai Deen Dayal, Hanuman Gali GT Road, Koil Aligarh

                                                         V/s

1. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd,. Ground & first Floor, Mathuria Bhawan Near Singhal Eye Hospital, Ramghat Road, Aligarh
2. Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd,. through Manager U.P. Tower No.B/7 B/8 & g/7 G/8 Sanjay Place, Aligarh                                                                                     

CORAM

 Present:                                   

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot,Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs-

1. The Ops be directed to pay the amount Rs.73413 with interest @12% per annum from 06.5.2021 till the date of actual payment.
2. The Op be directed to pay Rs. 50000 as compensation for physical and mental suffering.
3. The Ops be directed to pay Rs. 20000 as Litigation expenses.

2. The Complainant has stated that the she has a saving bank account no. 4609010001781938 in op no.1 bank branch. She has invested Rs.1000000 for three year in fix deposit scheme on 7.9.2019 in account no. 4609030001701664/1. The interest was payable at the rate 9.6% at the maturity amount Rs.1329059 was payable on maturity date 6.5.2022. The certificate was issued by Jana Small finance Ltd. Ghaziabad Branch. Complainant had availed the overdraft facility of Rs.900000. Before the maturity date complainant requested the op for encasement of the FD. Mr. Awadesh the Branch Operation Head visited the house of complainant on 4.5.2022 and obtained the signature of the complainant on a blank from. Mr. Awadesh had visited the house of the complainant on the direction of Mr. Manvendra Kumar, Branch Manager of op no.2 to get the form sign by the complainant. Mr. Manvendra Kumar had assured the complainant son Rahul Singhal to release the amount of FD in favor of complainant  on making signature on the from presented by Mr. Awdesh and the complainant and her son reposing the confidence in them complainant had signed the form presented by Mr. Awdesh. Complainant came to note that FD was en cashed by the op on 5.5.2022 instead of maturity date 6.5.2022 at Rs.1255587 which was less Rs. 73413 against the maturity amount Rs. 1329059 and thereby loss of Rs.73413 was caused to the complainant by the act and omissions of the Op.               
3. OP no.1 and 2 stated in WS that the op no.1 and 2 is a company having license from the RBI to carry on the small faineance bank business. It is stated that Complainant had taken OD limit of Rs.900000 against which she was supposed to pay EMI of Rs. 15943. Complainant contracted Aligarh Branch for OD settlement on 2.5.2022 but due to some reason the same could not be processed. On 4.5.2022 branch officials visited complainant’s house and obtained her signature on form of the OD settlement through making adjustment from FD. It is further stated that the deduction in maturity amount was caused due to pre mature break of the FD. The overdraft closure request reflects the date 5.5.2022 instead of maturity date. The entire negligence  has been made by complainant herself as any deduction maturity amount was caused due to premature breakup of FD.                   
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op has also filed affidavit in support of his pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. It is evident from the record that ops have file Vaklatnama 1.2.2023 and WS has filed on 25.3.2023 and thus the WS is not admissible as being beyond 45 days of the notice for filing the WS in view of law laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus the  complainant’s case stands proved as there is no rebuttal of the pleadings of the complainant. Thus complainant is entitled for relief claimed.
8. However, taking into consideration the pleadings made by the ops in WS, the case may be decided on merits. Admittedly, complainant was provided OD limit Rs.900000 repayable through EMIs of Rs.15943 each and the branch officials obtain the signatures of complainant on request form at her house for OD settlement on 4.5.2022 through making adjustment from FD. It is admitted the overdraft closure request for duly signed by the complainant reflects the date of 5.5.2022.  The maturity date of the FD was 6.5.2022. It is clear that the bank officials were aware of the fact that maturity date of the FD was 6.5.2022 and the date of overdraft closer request was 5.5.2022. Thus the branch officials could have acted to follow up the overdraft closer request signed by the complainant on 4.5.2022 on 6.5.2022 instead of acting upon on 5.5.2022. It is evident that the bank officials did not exercise due diligence in acting upon on 6.5.2022 on maturity date whereby complainant suffered loss and ops are liable to indemnify the complainant for the amount Rs.73413 with interest.               
9. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainant.
10. We hereby directed the ops to indemnify the complainant for the amount Rs.73413 with interest @ 12% from 5.5.2021 till the date of actual payment with litigation expenses Rs.10000 to the complainant.
11. Op shall comply with the directions within 45 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.