BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                  Consumer Complaint No.445 of 2011

                                 Date of institution:          24.10.2011

 07.04.2016

                                              Date of Decision:            29.09.2016

1.     Ajit Singh Ubhi son of Sarwan Singh resident of House No.911, Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab.

2.     Ms. Swaran Kaur wife of Ajit Singh, resident of House No.911, Phase 3B2, Mohali, Punjab.

                                               ……..Complainants

                                        Versus

ICICI Bank Limited, SCF 21-22, Phase-VII, Mohali, Punjab.

                                                                   ………. Opposite Party

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM

                Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member.

                Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.

Present:    Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj, counsel for the complainants.

                Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for the OP.

Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Presiding Member

ORDER

                The complainants have filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’) against the opposite party on the averments that on the assurance of the opposite party, the complainants deposited the amount of Rs.6,30,612/- in their account with the opposite party. On 01.02.2007  an amount of Rs.6.0 lacs was debited from the account of the complainants and FDR was issued to them. That it was specifically recorded in FDR that the amount payable on maturity date i.e. 26.02.2008 would be Rs.6,58,169/- for a period of one year. That complainants also got sanctioned OD limited for Rs.5,40,000/- against the FDR by opening a separate account with the opposite party. That the opposite party has not credited the maturity amount in the account of the complainants on the date of maturity i.e. 26.02.2008 of FDR. That complainant No.1 contacted the opposite party in this regard, whereupon they assured that the amount would be credited in their account. Eventually in the month of September, an amount of Rs.6,52,121.09 was credited in the account of the complainants against agreed amount of Rs.6,58,169/- which was less amount to the extent of Rs.6,048/-. The complainants again approached the Manager of the opposite party to credit the balance amount of Rs.6,048/- being less amount that the maturity amount, but no amount was credited. So there is deficiency in service besides unfair trade practice by the opposite party. Lastly complainants prayed  that the opposite party be directed to refund the balance amount of Rs.6,048/- to the complainants besides payment of interest on the amount of Rs.6,58,169/- from the maturity period on 26.02.2008 till 29.11.2008. The complainants also claimed Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation from the opposite party and lastly prayed to this Forum for the acceptance of complaint

2.             After service of notice upon the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party appeared  and filed written version  and contested the complaint taking preliminary objections that complaint is barred by time of limitation as the dispute pertains to the period from 26.02.2008 to 29.11.2008 and instant complaint was filed on 23.09.2011 and is, thus, barred by time. It is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. On merits, the opposite party has submitted that complainants have not mentioned the OD limit and the FDR of the complainants was secured against the above loan taken by the complainants from the opposite party against FDR as security. That the FDR was pledged to the opposite party by the complainant for availing the OD limit bearing No.005805003433. The complainants denied the utilization of the amount of the OD instead of clearing the same.  That complainants even withdrew an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs in the month of April, 2008. That on 29.11.2008 the overdraft account against which the said FDR was released was closed by the complainants. It was further averred that FDR was given by the complainants to the opposite party bank as security and same could not be released as long as the complainants were in arrears of the overdraft amount. It was denied that the complainants approached the opposite party for the release of the same prior to 29.11.2008 as the amount of loan taken against the FDR was due against the OD account, whereof finance has been availed by the complainants. On closure of the OD, the FDR was issued to the complainants and there was no provision for auto renewal of the FDR. The amount of FDR could be re-credited only in case the OD was closed by the complainants.  That on 26.02.2008 the account was overdrawn/OD facility was being used and subsequently major amounts were withdrawn therefrom by the complainants.  Lastly, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             Evidence of the complainants consists of affidavit of complainant No.1 Ex.CW-1/1; copies of receipt dated 09.02.2007 Ex.C-1; letters dated 08.04.009 and 15.04.2009 Ex.C-2 and C-3 and account statement dated 30.03.2009 Ex.C-4

4.             Evidence of the OP consists of affidavit of Dinesh Garg, its Manager Ex.OP-1/1.

5.             We have heard the arguments and also gone through the file of the case.

6.             Previously this District Forum has dismissed the complaint holding that it is barred by limitation. Dissatisfied with the order of this District Forum dated 01.12.2011, the complainants/appellants have preferred an appeal against the same. The Hon’ble State Commission, Punjab found that the cause of action is continuing and not concluded one on 29.11.2008. A similar matter has been examined by Hon’ble Uttar Pradesh State Commission, Lucknow observed in Gurmeet Singh vs. Rakesh Kumar Sharma and Anr. 2002 (II) CPJ 209 wherein it has been held that maturity date of FDR in 1988-89, complaint filed in 1993, barred by time. Contention not acceptable, cause of action continues till such time the payment alongwith interest is made. In the appeal of this very complaint, the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab held that the cause of action will continue as the complainants have not been able to get back the amount deposited by them with interest from the opposite party. Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab set aside the order of the District Forum dated 01.12.2011 and remitted the case to this District Forum for deciding it afresh on its merits.

                So the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab very clearly held that this complaint is not barred by limitation as the cause of action is continuing one. The second preliminary objection that complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties is without any substance because complainants have cause of action only against the opposite party and none else.

                The complainants are consumers of the opposite party as they are availing service of the opposite party bank. As per Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) ‘service’ includes banking service.

                The complainants have proved on file Ex.C-1 which is FDR dated 09.02.2007 of the opposite party bank in favour of Swaran Kaur (complainant No.2) for an amount of Rs.6.00 lacs to be matured on 26.02.2008 for an amount of Rs.6,58,169/-. Thus, the complainants have proved vide Ex.C-1 that they were entitled to received Rs.6,58,169.00 on 26.02.2008.

                The opposite party failed to place on record any proof that explains/justify the payment of less amount of Rs.6,048/- and late payment of nine months. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date), provides a very powerful right to consumers i.e. right to education. The opposite party failed to prove that consumers were ever educated about reasons for deduction of amount or grounds of late payment to them. So, the opposite party remained deficient in discharging their service to consumers and, therefore, consumer No.2 is entitled to receive the fund of amount of Rs.6,048/- and interest @ 8.75% per annum on amount of Rs.6,58,169/- for the period of nine months. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.6,048/- and pay the  interest @ 8.75% per annum on amount of Rs.6,58,169/- for the period of nine months to complainant No.2. Further the opposite party is directed to pay interest @ 8%  at the amount from the date of filing this complaint till its actual payment of the above mentioned amount.

                The arguments on the complaint were concluded on 16.09.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.  Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

                The reason of late decision of the present complaint than the prescribed period is that this complaint was dismissed by this Forum vide order dated 01.12.2011 and Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab remitted this complaint to this Forum vide Letter No.SCDRC/Pb/15/8618 dated 24.03.2015, which was received by this Forum on 24.03.2015.

                As per office report dated 08.02.2016 “this file was kept alongwith other decided cases, it only came to the notice that the file has to be re-fixed, when the Clerk for ld. Counsel for the complainant approached office on 29.01.2016 and accordingly, without any delay the case is being put up for further proceedings in the matter. Therefore, this complaint is decided later than the prescribed period due to the above stated reasons as well as delay caused by the opposite party in tendering evidence and also delay caused in concluding the arguments which ultimately concluded on 16.09..2016.

Pronounced.                           

September 29, 2016.                                                         

(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)

Presiding Member

(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)

Member