Dr. Kewal Krishan Bansal, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against The Manager, Axis Bank (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party).
Shorn off un-necessasary details, briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having FD No. 911040009299437 related to customer ID 242008528 in his saving account No. 073732 in the Axis Bank, Mall Road, Bathinda Branch (opposite party). The FD matured on 10-08-2015. The maturity amount was Rs. 2,39225/-. On the date of maturity, FD was neither got renewed nor the amount was credited in the account of the complainant.
It is further pleaded that complainant did not receive any SMS on his registered mobile number/by e-mail or by any written communication after maturity of the FD. He sent an e-mail to the Branch Manager (opposite party) and Nodal Officer Axis Bank on 8th September, 2015 regarding this problem. On 14-9-2015 and 16-9-2015 e-mails were sent to complainant in response to his e-mail dated 8-9-2015 and 15-9-2015. He was told that there is a debit freeze on his FD due to DDA flat booking and the bank will not lift the freeze on FD. The Bank will neither renew nor credit the amount to his saving account. Thus holding on to money of the complainant illegally without paying any interest.
The complainant has further pleaded that he paid cash amount as upfront interest for booking a DDA flat in the Axis Branch Dwarka, New Delhi Branch in 2014. Some Axis Bank official from Delhi called complainant after the declaration of draw and asked him to deposit Rs. 1.00 Lac in the nearest Axis Bank Branch. He replied that he did not have funds to pay amount. As such, they should cancel allotment and recover money from DDA forthwith. Because of laxity and apathy of the Axis Bank officials, the amount was not recovered from DDA in time. Further more, if the DDA did not refund the money, Axis Bank should sue DDA and not resort to the easy way of embezzlement and steal the money from his account without his written consent. The bank is simply custodian of the money of complainant in the form of savings account cash and FD deposits in his account and has no authority to operate his account.
It is also pleaded by the complainant that he did not pledge or attach any of his FD or his bank account in Axis Bank, Bathinda against DDA application for which he had already paid the entire interest amount upfront at the time of booking to the Dwarka, New Delhi Axis Bank Branch. He also did not sign any documents declaring that the Bank can freeze his account or FD if the Bank fails to recover money from DDA. The application for DDA allotment and funds provided for booking the DDA flat was purely a commercial venture of the Bank to earn profit from the consumers, in the business interest of the Bank, whereby the Bank earned millions by way of charging exorbitant upfront interest from hundreds and thousands of consumers. Complainant is not liable and in any case the DDA application is not related to his saving account or FDs in the Axis Bank, Bathinda.
It is also pleaded that complainant never received any information regarding freezing of his FD account. The complainant has also pleaded that he is senior citizen and dependent on his savings in the bank for survival. The Bank did not renew his FD/credit the maturity amount in his saving account and persisted with the freeze on his account despite his repeated requests. The complainant has been forced to file a legal complaint.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. He has prayed for following reliefs :-
1. Pay cost of complaint incurred by complainant including court fee of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 5000/- as advocate fee hired by him.
2. Travel Expenses by Taxi cab from place of residence to Consumer Forum, Bathinda (About 40 Kms from place of residence Gidderbaha) for all his attendance in the Consumer Forum, Bathinda, during pendency of this case and compensation for loss of his time Rs. 10,000/-.
3. Pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards punitive compensation for great financial hardship, inconvenience and mental harassment caused to him considering that he is senior citizen more than 71 years of age, dependent entirely on his savings in bank for the survival of his family.
4. The maturity value of FD amount of Rs. 2,39,225/- alongwith interest @ 9.5% p.a. from 10-8-2015 till the decision of case.
5. The bank may also be refrained in future from freezing his other FDs in the Bank or debit any money from his saving account without his written signed request.
Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form. That complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint.
It is further revealed that DDA Delhi was to open the draw of the flats in its various schemes, allotment of which was offered to the public in general, within a period of three months from the last date of making applications. Accordingly, the opposite party gave loan of earnest money of individual flats to its customers/public in general after charging three months interest in advance. The opposite party's Delhi Branch charged three months advance interest on Rs.1.00 Lac being the earnest money of the flat, applied for by the complainant, from him on 12-12-2014 in loan A/c No. 914060054811883. However, the DDA New Delhi opened draw for allotment of the flats after about six months. The complainant was allotted flat by DDA Delhi. He was asked to pay further amount but he neither deposited the demanded amount nor surrendered flat to DDA Delhi within prescribed time. The complainant surrendered the flat after prescribed time. The DDA New Delhi refunded Rs. 95,000/- to the opposite party and deducted Rs. 5,000/- as penalty charges and an amount of Rs. 5790/- is due in the loan account of the complainant. The complainant was asked to pay the said amount and get his FD released, but instead of paying the amount, he has filed this complaint by concocting a false story.
It is further pleaded that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The matter involved in this case does not fall within the ambit of 'Act'. That complainant is not consumer. That this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. That the complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from this Forum. That he is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts, conduct and acquiescence. That intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the matter which cannot be decided in summary procedure. The parties have to lead evidence by examining witnesses which are to be cross examined by other party. The complainant, if so advised, may approach to civil court for alleged relief and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious and opposite parties are not liable to exemplary cost to the tune of Rs. 10,000/-.
On merits, it is admitted that complainant has FD No. 911040009299437 having customer ID No.242008528 A/c No. 073732 with opposite party. The FD was matured on 10-08-2015. The maturity amount was Rs. 2,39,225/-.
It is further unfolded that FD was handed over to complainant. The complainant did not approach opposite party for renewal of FD at any time. Until and unless the holder of FD approaches the Bank either for renewal or encashment, the FD is neither renewed nor encashed in the account of the holder of FD. It is denied that complainant ever made instructions to the opposite party for renewal of his FD after being matured.
It is also asserted that necessary intimation is being sent to all the customers through SMS on the registered mobile number with regard to generated information. The receipt of e-mails of the complainant is not denied. The reply to the e-mails is also admitted.
It is mentioned that complainant was intimated that Debit freeze on his FD is due to DDA flat booking and the same cannot be lifted until and unless the amount due against the booking is paid to opposite party. It is also mentioned that as per instructions, rules and regulations of the Bank, when any account/FD is freezed then it is neither renewed nor any amount therefrom is transferred to any other account. It is denied that money of the complainant has been held illegally. It is denied that opposite party has caused any financial hardship or mental harassment to complainant.
It is reiterated that as per scheme of the opposite party, the complainant was granted loan of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The opposite party has also reiterated its stand regarding due amount of Rs. 5790/- as already detailed in preliminary objections. It is also pleaded that complainant cannot be permitted to get away the amount of FD by leaving the amount due in his loan account outstanding against him. The opposite party is well within its right to recover the due amount through easy method from the complainant. The complainant cannot ask the opposite party to enter into uncalled for litigation with him for recovering the amount due against him. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 1-3-2016 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of e-mails (Ex. C-2 & Ex. C-3), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-4) and photocopy of term deposit (Ex. C-5)
In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 8-7-2016 of Anuj Malika (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopies of account statements (Ex. OP-1/2 & Ex. OP-1/3) and photocopy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/4) and closed the evidence.
The complainant has also submitted written arguments.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of complainant.
Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that complainant has number of FDs with the opposite party. The opposite party has admittedly freezed FD of the complainant which was matured on 10-08-2015 but no intimation was given to the complainant. The bank (opposite party) was never authorized to freeze the FD of the complainant. Therefore, this act of the opposite party is totally illegal and amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant remained deprived from the use of his hard earned money deposited with the opposite party in the shape of FD. He was forced to borrow money from relatives and friends. The complainant was also feeling humiliated for borrowing money despite of the fact that he was having lacs of rupees in his account. Freezing of FD also caused financial hardship for the complainant for his survival.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that the claim of the opposite party of Rs. 5734/- is also illegal. He has already paid interest upfront as advance interest to Axis Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi, for booking a DDA flat at Delhi and he has already intimated the bank that he has no interest in keeping the flat and bank can recover the deposited amount from DDA. The bank was negligent in recovering the amount from DDA and has claimed Rs. 5734/- from him deducted by DDA.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that loan was not related to bank account or FD. The complainant has not pledged his FD or bank account as security for the loan. It was rather offered by the bank being commercial business to all the citizens of India whether or not they had an account with the bank or not. The bank already charged a hefty rate of interest upfront from all those who applied for the loan.
It is also submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite party has fraudulently frozen his FDs of more than Rs.16.00 Lacs and he was denied availability of money when he needed the same for his survival. Therefore, deficiency in service on the part of opposite party stands proved. The complaint be accepted and relief claimed be granted.
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. He has not revealed true facts. Admittedly he has availed loan of Rs.1.00 Lacs as earnest money for applying for flat in DDA Delhi. Of course the complainant has paid upfront interest but it was only for three months. The draw was held after scheduled period. Therefore, the complainant was required to pay interest till the date of receipt of refund from DDA. The complainant himself was to claim refund from DDA. He was rather asking opposite party to recover the amount from DDA. The amount was deposited in the name of complainant. The complainant was only entitled to claim refund. Therefore this act of the complainant itself proves that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
The learned counsel for the opposite party has further submitted that as the complainant failed to pay due interest of Rs. 5790/-, his FD was automatically freezed. It cannot be credited or released to the complainant even on maturity unless de-freezed after deposit of due amount. The opposite party acted in good faith. Any act in good faith does not amount to deficiency in service.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that loan account statement (Ex. OP-1/3) proves that amount outstanding against the complainant stands waived and balance in the loan account is Nil. The complainant is at liberty to get his FD released or renewed after completing required formalities. No deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to the opposite parties. The relief claimed by the complainant is beyond the scope of this Forum. The complainant was also to prove loss suffered by him but there is no evidence to prove any actual loss suffered by him. The complaint is abuse of process of law. It be dismissed with cost.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
In the written arguments, the complainant has referred about seven FDRs which were to mature on different dates from 10-08-2015 onwards but this complaint is relating to FDR No. 911040009299437 which was due for renewal w.e.f. 10-08-2015. Therefore, submission/reference regarding other FDRs is not relevant for the disposal of controversy involved in this case.
The undisputed fact is that complainant is having one FDR No. 911040009299437 which was to mature on 10-08-2015 and the maturity amount was Rs. 2,39,225/-. The complainant has alleged that this FD has been freezed by opposite party illegally and without any authorization. Of course, the opposite party has not denied that FD was freezed but the version of the opposite party is that a sum of Rs. 5790/- was outstanding against the complainant. This amount was due as the complainant applied for flat with DDA, Delhi, after availing loan of earnest money of Rs. 1.00 Lac by making payment upfront as advance interest for three months. The draw of flat was held after scheduled period. The opposite party has received Rs. 95,000/- from DDA, Delhi, in lieu of Rs. 1.00 Lac deposited in the name of complainant. As per version of the opposite party nothing is due against the complainant.
The main point for determination is that even if a sum of Rs. 5790/- was due against the complainant, wether the opposite party was entitled to freeze the FD of maturity value of Rs. 2,39,225/-. The opposite party has not produced any rule or regulation justifying freeze of FD of Rs. 2,39,225/- in lieu of due amount of Rs. 5790/-. At the most, the opposite party was having lien of Rs. 5790/- and only this amount could have been retained out of total amount. Therefore, this fact proves deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
Now the question is regarding relief for which the complainant can be held entitled. Of course the complainant has prayed number of reliefs in this complaint but the only deficiency is regarding freezing of FD. Therefore, the complainant can be held entitled to the compensation only to the extent he has suffered actual loss. The complainant has placed on record e-mail (Ex. C-2) sent to the opposite party on 8-9-2015 i.e. within one month from the due date of maturity of FD which was 10-08-2015. This e-mail reveals that FD was neither renewed nor amount was credited in the account of complainant. If the amount would have been credited in the saving account of complainant in August, 2015, he could have used the same to open a new FD but neither FD was renewed nor amount was credited in his account. The bank branch is responsible for the loss incurred by him. The complainant further requested for renewal of FD w.e.f. the date of maturity.
Therefore, this e-mail proves that main claim of the complainant was regarding loss of interest as his intention was only to reinvest the amount in the shape of FD or to get the FD renewed. Thus, the complainant is entitled to interest at admissible rate if the FD was renewed w.e.f. 10-08-2015.
For the reasons recorded above, this complaint is accepted with Rs. 5,000/- as cost and compensation. The complainant is also held entitled to admissible rate of interest on FD by treating FD of the complainant renewed from 10-08-2015 till the date of release of amount.
The compliance with regard to cost and compensation be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.
Announced :
27-01-2017
(M.P.Singh Pahwa )
President
(Jarnail Singh )
Member
