DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 434 of 2010 Date of Inst: 15.07.2010 Date of Decision:25.01.2011 Major Sarjit Singh Johal (Retd.), Senior Citizen, # 1356, Sector 34-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Manager HDFC Bank, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 2. Managing Director, HDFC Bank, HDFC Bank House Sena Patti Bhapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai-400013. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Complainant in person. Sh.Nirmal Kumar, Adv.Proxy for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Sarjit Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to pay him the amount due against the FDR No.110703000084826 along with interest as per the prevalent market rate till its realization. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 25.04.2007 he along with his wife deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- for a period of three years. The interest payable was @ 9.75% p.a. OP issued FDR No.110703000084826. Later on the Bank enhanced the rate of interest on the fixed deposits so the complainant got the said FDR renewed on 04.05.2007. The interest on the renewed FDR was @ 10.50%. The new FDR No.110703000086602 was issued to him. The said FDR was to mature on 04.05.2010. In the meantime, the Centurion Bank of Punjab was merged with HDFC Bank. So HDFC Bank issued a new receipt No. 13145730001991 in replacement of the FDR No. No.110703000086602. The case of the complainant is that after the date of maturity, the complainant requested OPs to encash the said FDR and pay him the amount due against the FDR but OPs refused to do so. Ultimately, he served the OPs with a legal notice but to no effect. According to the complainant, failure on the part of OPs to pay him the due amount against the said FDR amounts to deficiency in service. 3. In the reply filed by the OP, it has been pleaded that on 25.04.2007, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- for a period of three years in fixed deposit account in the names of the complainant and his wife having interest @ 9.75%. It has also been admitted that later on the rate of interest was enhanced. So the complainant got the said FDR renewed. So another receipt bearing No.110703000086602 was issued to him. Then the renewed FDR was to mature on 04.05.2010. It has also been pleaded that Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with HDFC Bank so another new receipt in replacement of the said FDR for the like amount bearing No.13145730001991 was issued to the complainant. The case of OPs is that after maturity of the said FDR, on the request of the complainant, the amount due against the said FDR was credited to his savings bank account No.13141000007071. So now nothing is due against OPs in respect of the said FDR. In these circumstances, according to OPs, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. We have heard the complainant in person and Sh.Nirmal Kumar, Advocate, proxy counsel for the OPs and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 5. Admittedly, the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- only once although the number of the FDR was changed twice. He deposited the said amount on 25.04.2007. At that time, the rate of interest was 9.75% p.a. and later on the bank enhanced the rate of interest on fixed deposits so the complainant got the said FDR encashed and re-deposited the said amount on new rate of interest in the fixed deposit for a period of three years. So another receipt No.110703000086602 was issued to the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant had not deposited another or fresh sum of Rs.50000/-. In fact, it was the same amount of Rs.50000/- which was deposited by him on 25.04.2007. Later on Centurion Bank of Punjab was merged with HDFC Bank. So HDFC Bank issued a new receipt No. 13145730001991 in lieu of the earlier FDR No.110703000086602. According to the complainant, after the date of maturity of the said FDR, on the request of the complainant, the amount due against the FDR was transferred to his account(complainant’s account) bearing No. 13141000007071. In his replication, the complainant has admitted the receipt of the said amount. However, according to the complainant, the said amount is against another FDR. The complainant has failed to place on record any document showing that he has deposited another or fresh sum of Rs.50000/- in addition to the amount of Rs.50000/- mentioned above. In these circumstances, the complainant has already received the amount due against the FDR and now nothing is outstanding and payable to him. 6. In these circumstances, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OPs. 7. In view of the above findings, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs leaving the parties to bear their own costs. 8. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 25.01.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
