BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2024

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-

1. To pay Rs.4,23,624/- together with interest @ 11.5% from 30.10.2023  and to pass order to release the FD amount with interest to the complainant.
2. To pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony suffered by the complainant with regard to the deficiency of service from OP.
3. And also grant such other reliefs.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The OP is a registered society engaged in banking business including term deposit scheme and OP2 is the Secretary/Manager/CEO of the OP1 and he is representing the OP1 society.

3. The complainant is the daughter of Dr.K.Ramesh Babu. The OP2 and the said doctor are well known to each other since several years and based on the well acquaintance with the father of the complainant the OP2 has approached the father of the complainant and requested to deposit some amount in their society and also further assured to give good rate of interest for the fixed term deposit for depositors. The father of the complainant was impressed by the offer made by the OP2 and agreed to invest the amount with OP1 with his family members including his father of the complainant. The OP2 has convinced about the giving of issuance of interest @ 11.50% to 12.50% for term deposit.

4. The complainant and her family members have invested huge amount with OP1 and they have invested totally an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under seven FDs.  The OP2 has issued the FD receipts.
5. After that the complainant has requested the OP1 and 2 to release the FD amount after maturity and also to pay the interest to the FD amount from 02.04.2020.  Even after repeated demand the OP1 and 2 have not released the FD amount.  The OPs are liable to pay the FD amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest on 03 FDs from 02.04.2020 to 30.10.2023 amounting to Rs.1,23,624/-.  The OPs are liable to pay totally an amount of Rs.4,23,624/- as on 30.10.2023 and they are further liable to pay interest @ 11.5% p.a., on the total amount of Rs.4,23,624/- from 30.10.2023 till realization of the said amount.  The complainant has got issued legal notice on 06.11.2023 and the same was served on OP on 17.11.2023.  The OP have replied for the said notices through their notice dated 21.11.2023 by seeking time till 31.01.2024 for the arrangement of funds to clear the FD amount of the complainant. The OP has not made any effort to resolve the issues and thereby committed deficiency of service. Hence this complaint is filed.  

6. In response to the notice, OPs have appeared before this Commission but failed to file the version within 45 days.

7. The complainant has filed her affidavit evidence and relies on 06 documents. 

8. Heard the arguments of advocate for the complainant. Arguments of the OP are taken as nil. Perused the documents.

9. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

10. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

11. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, affidavit evidence and documents filed by the complainant. Even though the OP has appeared before this Commission through their counsel has failed to file their version within 45 days. They have not led any evidence and submitted any arguments.   The allegations made in the complaint and documents filed by the complainant remained unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence and documents filed by the complainant.

12. The undisputed fact which reveals from the pleadings and documents goes to show that the complainant’s father and the OP2 were known to each other from so many years.  In view of this the OP2 made an offer to the complainant’s father to deposit the amount and he will give 11.5% to 12.5% interest for term deposits.  The complainant’s father attracted by the offer made by the OP, has made the complainant and her family members to deposit the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- in the year 2019-20.  The OP has also issued the receipt for having deposited the amount as per Ex.P1.

13. In support of her contention the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relied on 05 documents. Ex.P1 is the three copies of FD receipts, Ex.P2 is the copy of the legal notice, Ex.P3 and 4 are the postal receipts and acknowledgements, Ex.P5 is the reply to the notice and Ex.P6 is the copy of the GPA dated 11.04.2023.

14. It is settled proposition of law that if the F.Ds are matured, it is the duty of the concerned Bank/ or any financial institution to inform their customers for taking back the matured sum, if not to re-deposit with notice to their customers as per the decision reported in 2021(2) CPR 597 (NC) – Standard Chartered Bank Vs. Lakshwinder Singh where in it is held that – “Any customer who deposits amount under reinvestment plan is under assumption that the FDR will be renewed either till he approaches or gives any other specific instruction to the Bank”.

15. In the instant case, the complainant has sought for the matured sum covered under the said FDs for which she made several correspondences to the OP but by one or the other pretext, OP had dragged the matter. At last the complainant has issued a legal notice to the OP as Ex.P2 and after service of the notice the OP replied and requested for time.

16. Even though the OP appeared before this commission has failed to file their version.

17. In this case the complainant has made the demand through legal notice as per Ex.P2 on 06.11.2023 and filed this complaint before this Commission 27.12.2023 within three years from the date of demand. Under these circumstances, the complaint is not barred by limitation.  The OP has not refunded the matured amount with interest as agreed.

18.   In this context, we are of the opinion that the OP service is not up to the mark which is nothing but deficiency in service much less unfair trade practice.  Accordingly, we direct the OP to release the matured sum of Rs.4,23,624/- with interest at the rate of 10% from the 30.10.2023 till the date of realization with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 is partly in affirmative.

19. Point No.3:  In the result, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant u/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is allowed in part.
2. OP is directed to refund the amount of Rs.4,23,624/- being maturity value of the FD with interest at 10% p.a., from 30.10.2023 to till the date of realization.
3. OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-  with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this order, failing which the OP shall pay interest at 12% p.a. after expiry of 60 days on Rs.4,23,624/- till final payment.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 05^TH day of JULY 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL