BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                

Ajit Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Nand Ram Yadav R/o R/o H.No.1005, Sector-16, Panchkula.

  ….Complainant

Versus

1. M/s UCO Bank Ltd., SCO No.395, Sector 8 Panchkula, Haryana 134109 through its Branch Manager.

2. M/s UCO Bank Ltd., Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata, West Bengal 700001 through its Managing Director.      

                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,   1986.

Before:      Mr. Dharam Pal, President.

                Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Mr.Sumit Narang, Advocate for Ops.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)  

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that complainant has a saving bank account bearing No.01750100006698 with the OP No.1 and complainant was opened   two Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts vide Nos. 18520110056103 and 18520110052556 both with the interest rate of 9.25% compounded quarterly. RD account No.   18520110056103 was to be matured on 6.4.2017 in which the total deposited amount was Rs.9,45,000/- and RD account No. 18520110052556 was to be matured on 16.12.2016 in which the total deposited amount was Rs. 10,06,000/-. Complainant wanted to purchase a Pension Plan from Life Insurance Corporation of India and for this purpose he was required to invest/pay Rs. 10,00,000/- plus service tax by 30.11.2016 which was the last date for subscription of the same. On 30.11.2016 when complainant went to the OP No.1 to avail a loan against above mentioned RDs, the Senior Manager Ms. Neha declined his request for loan and advised the complainant to get his RD prematurely encashed.  After the negative response from official of OP No.1 complainant asked Ms. Vijeta (Manager of OP No.1) about the rate of interest and the receivable amount from the RD No. 18520110056103. Complainant was told that the interest would be calculated @ 8.25% i.e. 1% less than that of the assigned interest rate on maturity and by this logic the total loan amount was calculated as Rs. 9,90,000/-.  So, complainant decided to get RD No. 18520110056103 encashment prematurely and submitted the request for the same. But the complainant had an amount of Rs. 26,341/- in his aforementioned saving account in which the proceeds of RD were to be debited.  Thereafter on the above calculation complainant issued a cheque vide No.802737 of Rs. 10,15,000/- (Rs. 10,00,000/- as policy premium and Rs. 15,000/- as service tax there upon) from the said saving account of LIC on 30.11.2016.  Complainant had shocked to hear when the LIC Officials informed him that the cheque was returned unpaid/bounced from the OP No.1 on account of insufficient funds and this led to penalty of Rs. 717/- in the form of cheque bounce charges. Thereafter, complainant immediately approached OP No.1 and enquired about the matter. Complainant was surprised to know that RD proceeds were only Rs. 9,80,352/- instead of Rs. 9,90,000/- as calculated by Ms. Vijeta. She stated that some miscalculation had happened while disbursement of RD proceeds and reaffirmed that the actual amount should have been Rs. 9,90,000/- and ensured him that she would take up the issue and get the balance disbursed to complainant saving account in view days.  Thereafter, complainant deposited Rs. 10,000/- in his saving account so that cheque may get cleared upon resubmission.  But on 13.1.2017 complainant was told that no further RD proceeds would be paid to complainant. On 19.1.2017, complainant met branch head Mr. R.K.Mittal and apprised him about the matter and he stated that complainant should have taken a loan against his RDs instead of proceeding for premature encashment of RD. the officials of OP No.1 admitted their fault. But  they refused for any resolution. Seeing the previous behavior of the officials of OP no.1, who never agreed to give anything in writing about the fault committed by them, complainant got the above conversations dated 19.1.2017 and 20.1.2017 recorded in his mobile. This act and conduct of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint. 

 2.            Upon notice, OPs appeared and contested the complaint by filing their written statement by taking preliminary objections and submitted that the complainant was maintaining two Recurring Deposit (RD) accounts vide Nos. 18520110056103 and 18520110052556 and a saving account NO.01750100006698 with OP No. 1.  The complainant himself wanted to purchase a Pension Plan for Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) and to avail the above said plan, the complainant was required to invest Rs. 10,00,000/- plus service tax by 30.11.2016. For purchasing the above said investment/Pension Plan, the complainant requested the OP No.1 for premature encashment of RD No.18520110056103. The complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. On 30.11.2016 the complainant approached the OP NO.1 and made a written request for premature encashment of his Recurring Deposit (RD) account No. 18520110056103 and for transferring the proceeds into his saving account No. 01750100006698. The complainant never requested the OP  No.1 for loan against his recurring deposit (RD) maintained with OP No.1.  It is denied that the complainant approached Ms. Vijeta, Manager with OP NO.1 and requested for loan against his Recurring Deposit (RD) and she forwarded his request to Ms. Neha, Senior Manager, who stated that there was no provision of loan against RD’s and advised him to get the RDs encashment prematurely. Moreover, it is preminently displayed on the notice board in the customer lobby of the OP Bank that loan facility is available on a Recurring Deposit. When  a Recurring Deposit (RD) is prematurely encashed, the operating rate of interest payable on such premature payment of Recurring Deposit is 1% less than the applicable rate of interest  for which the deposit was held by the bank as on the date of deposit or present rate whichever is lower.  The applicable rate of interest has on the date of deposit was 9.25% and on the date of withdrawal the rate of interest was 7.40%.  The rate of interest was calculated strictly in accordance with rules and guidelines of the bank, which was duly brought to the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, upon premature withdrawal, complainant was paid interest @ 6.40% i.e. 1% less than the lower rate of interest i.e. 7.40%. The complainant had opened the said RD a/c No.18520110056103 on 6.4.2015, when the prevailing rate of interest was 9.25%, as is evident from the front page of Pass Book issued by the OP Bank and also from circular No. CHO/RM/19/2014-15 dated 14.2.2015. When the complainant had requested the OP Bank to prematurely close the said RD a/c at that time the applicable rate of interest was 7.40%.  as per the said Circular, rate of interest payable to a senior citizens w.e.f. 18.11.2016 for a deposit having maturity period of more than 1 year, but upto 2 years is clearly stated to be 7.40%. upon pre-mature withdrawal of the said RD a/c, complainant was paid interest @ 7.40%-1% (penal interest)=6.40% for the period for which the deposit had remained with the Bank. Complainant was disbursed a total amount of Rs. 9,80,352/- including interest upon premature withdrawal of his RD a/c No.18520110056103. It is denied that complainant would issue a cheque for an amount without having knowledge of the proceeds lying in his account.   Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 

3.             The complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-5 and thereafter closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered into evidence by way of affidavit Annexure R-A along with documents Annexure R-1 to R-8 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully and minutely. 

5.             The determination of the controversy would come about on the basis of the correctness or otherwise of the averments made by the complainant (in the course of Para-12 of the complaint) that he applied for pre-mature encashment of RD only when the dealing hand told him that no loan would be granted against an RD and the only way out for him to raise funds for payment against the LIC policy was to obtain pre-mature encashment of the RD. If it is held that the averment made by the complainant is correct, the complaint shall have to be allowed; while it would deserve rejection in case that averment is not held to be correct.

6.             The complainant, during the course of hearing, argued that the present being a case of oath versus oath (i.e. both the parties herein had filed affidavits in support of their respective averment) notwithstanding, the factual accuracy of the averment made by the former has to be upheld in the light of the telephonic conversation which he had had with the Manager of the OP, in the course whereof the latter had conceded that there had been a human error on the part of the official concerned and had also offered an apology therefor. Our attention, in the course of hearing, was invited to the transcription of the audio recording (Annexure C-5). 

7.             The factum and the factual accuracy of the transcription has not been conceded by the OPs. For buttressing the relevant plea, the complainant shall have to play the relevant audio recording and also to prove that the impugned recording had taken place between him and the Branch head and other officials. That exercise cannot be under taken, in terms of the procedural rules of business as applicable to a Consumer Forum. We may not be taken to have commented upon the factual accuracy or otherwise of the audio recording or the transcription thereof. All that we have done is to record that the present is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into by the Forum, particularly when the recording of evidence in an identical matter is not permissible under the law in proceedings under adjudication before the Forum.     

8.             In the light of the predicament recorded in the immediately preceding para of this order, we would dispose of the complaint by relegating the complainant to the Civil Court for adjudication under the law. The adoption of remedy before the Civil Court would obviously be in the discretion of the complainant, though he may be able to legitimately apply for condonation of delay on an averment that he was pursuing the course of law before the Forum.

9.             A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced

22.12.2017                 ANITA KAPOOR                               DHARAM PAL

                                MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                        ANITA KAPOOR

                                              MEMBER