Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.1.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it dismissed the complaint of the complainant. 2. On 25.04.2007, the complainant, alongwith his wife deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- for a period of three years. The interest payable was @ 9.75% p.a. The OP issued FDR No.110703000084826. Later on, the bank enhanced the rate of interest to 10.50% on the fixed deposits. The complainant got the said FDR renewed on 04.05.2007. The renewed FDR bore No. 110703000086602. The said FDR was to mature on 04.05.2010. In the meantime, the Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with HDFC Bank. So, the HDFC Bank issued a new receipt No. 13145730001991 in replacement of FDR No.10703000086602. It was further stated that the complainant after the date of maturity, requested the OPs to encash the said FDR, and pay him the amount, due under it, but the OPs failed to do so. A legal notice was also served upon the OPs, but to no avail. It was further stated that the OPs were, thus, deficient, in rendering service. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him. 3. The OPs, in their reply, stated that on 25.04.2007, the complainant, deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- for a period of three years in the fixed deposit account, in his name, and in the name of his wife which carried interest @ 9.75%. It was further stated that later on the rate of interest was enhanced. It was further stated that the complainant got the said FDR renewed. So, another receipt bearing No.110703000086602 was issued in his favour. The renewed FDR was to mature on 04.05.2010. In the meanwhile, the Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with the HDFC Bank, so another new receipt, in replacement of the said FDR, for the like amount, bearing No.13145730001991, was issued in favour of the complainant. It was further stated that after maturity of the said FDR, on the request of the complainant, the amount due against the same, was credited to the savings bank account No.13141000007071 of the complainant. It was further submitted that, as such, there was nothing due against the OPs, in respect of the said FDR. It was further stated that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the complainant. 4. After hearing the Complainant in person, Counsel for the OPs, and, on going through the record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint. 5. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 6. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 7. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- each in two FDRs. He further submitted that, in respect of one FDR, on maturity, the amount was, credited to his saving bank account, but when the second FDR matured, and he demanded the amount thereof from the OPs, they failed to make payment of the same. He further submitted that, as such, there was deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, and they also indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that, as such, the order of the District Forum, being illegal, be set aside. 8. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, the appellant/complainant alongwith his wife deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 25.4.2007, for a period of three years, in the shape of FDR, which carried interest @ 9.75% p.a. He further submitted that the number of the FDR was 110703000084826. He further submitted that when the rate of interest was enhanced by the bank on the fixed deposits to 10.50%, the said FDR was got renewed by the complainant on 4.5.2007. The renewed/new FDR which was issued, bore No. 110703000086602. He further submitted that, in the meanwhile, the Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with the HDFC Bank. The HDFC bank issued a new receipt No. 13145730001991 in replacement of the renewed FDR No. 110703000086602. He further submitted that, in fact, the complainant and his wife had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- only, in one FDR, and as and when the same was renewed on account of change of rate of interest, a new number to the renewed FDR was given, and ultimately, in place of the renewed FDR, a new receipt number was issued to the complainant, when the Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with the HDFC Bank. He further submitted that the claim of the complainant, to the effect, that he deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in two FDRs, therefore, was totally wrong and against the facts and circumstances and evidence on record. He further submitted that when the FDR matured, on 4.5.2010, the amount thereof was credited to the saving bank account of the complainant. He further submitted that there was no deficiency, in service on the part of OP, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal, is liable to be upheld. 9. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. It is evident from C-1, that the complainant and his wife deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- in the shape of FDR, the number whereof was 110703000084826. The rate of interest payable was 9.75% p.a. and it was to mature on 4.5.2010. The maturity value of this FDR was Rs.66,754/-. It is further evident from the reverse side of C-I that when the rate of interest, was enhanced by the bank to 10.5% on 4.5.2007, the same very FDR was got renewed by the complainant. The number to this renewed FDR was given as 110703000086602. It is evident from C-5, that in the meanwhile, the Centurion Bank of Punjab merged with the HDFC Bank and in replacement of the aforesaid FDR, a new receipt bearing NO. 13145730001991was issued, in favour of the complainant. When the FDR matured on 4.5.2010, the amount thereof was credited to the saving bank account of the complainant. The factum of crediting the amount of this FDR, to his saving bank account bearing NO.13141000007071, was admitted, in the replication, by the complainant. However, the claim of the complainant, to the effect, that the amount which was credited to his saving bank account, was against another FDR is not correct. He failed to place on record any other FDR showing that he had deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- therein, in addition to the FDR, which was originally issued on 25.4.2007 and renewed from time to time. Even in C-4 letter, which was written to the complainant, position, in this regard was made abundantly clear, by the HDFC Bank. The claim of the complainant, therefore, was completely false. There was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was also right, in coming to such a conclusion. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 10. The order of the District Forum does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 11. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being without merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. 12. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 13. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | |
