1.       This Revision Petition by the HDFC Bank (for short “the Bank”), under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order, dated 01.04.2015, passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 1064 of 2012.  By the impugned order, while overturning the order, dated 13.07.2012, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (for short “the District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No. 94 of 2012, the State Commission has directed the Bank to pay to the Respondent/Complainant the principal amount with up-to date interest due in respect of FDR No. 02664410006680 on his deposit of the said FDR and to also credit the maturity value of FDR No. 12103000057725 in the account of the Complainant.

2.       We may note at the outset that according to learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the dispute in the present Revision Petition does not pertain to Fixed Deposit Receipt No. 12103000057725, referred to in the penultimate paragraph.

3.       The short grievance of the Respondent in the Complaint was that he had obtained two FDRs, bearing nos. 02664410004064 and 02664410006680 in the principal sum of ₹67,243.33 and ₹76,816.05 on 26.05.2009 and 20.09.2009 respectively.  The said FDRs were to mature on 27.05.2010 and 06.10.2010 respectively but the maturity value of both the said FDRs was neither paid nor credited to his account, on dates of maturity.

4.       Although, in a cryptic written version filed on behalf of the Bank, a bald plea was taken that nothing was due to be paid to the Complainant in respect of the said FDRs, as the amount due against the said FDRs had been credited to the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant, being No. 02661000134938, bearing Customer ID No. 28941502, and in the statement of the said account the credit of the proceeds of both the FDRs, on their pre-mature encashment, were duly reflected.

5.       Upon consideration of the material placed before it, the District Forum came to the conclusion that it was clear from the entries in the Bank passbook of the Complainant that the proceeds of the said FDRs had been credited to his Savings Bank Account.  Accordingly, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.

6.       Being aggrieved, the Complainant took the matter in Appeal to the State Commission.  As noted above, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal, with the afore-noted direction.  Hence, the present Revision Petition.

7.       We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the documents on record, particularly, the two FDRs in question and the afore-noted statement of account of the Complainant.  A perusal of the said statement clearly shows that on 11.06.2009, while crediting a sum of ₹81.07 as interest, on pre-mature encashment of FDR No.02664410004064, which was in the principal sum of ₹67,247.33, a total sum of ₹74,486.64 was credited to the Complainant’s account.  Similarly, on 22.09.2009 the principal amount of ₹76,816.05 in respect of FDR No. 02664410006680 was credited to his account.  On being questioned about the credit entries of the said two amounts in the statement of account, learned Counsel appearing for the Complainant does not dispute the said entries.  Nevertheless, his stand is that the Complainant had never made any request to the Bank for pre-mature encashment of the said two FDRs and, therefore, the Bank ought not to have broken the FDRs and credited the said amount in the account of the Complainant on its own volition.  Further, no intimation was given by the Bank to the Complainant about pre-mature encashment, more so when at the relevant time he was not in India.  It is, thus, pleaded that all these unilateral acts by the Bank amount to deficiency in service on its part.

8.       We are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the stand of the Complainant.  Regard being had to the entries in the statement of Complainant’s Savings Bank account, wherein the principal amounts, as reflected in the entries of the FDRs on record, along with interest for few days, when the FDRs were in existence, stand credited, which amounts were withdrawn by the Complainant by issuing a number of cheques, we are satisfied that the proceeds of the FDRs in question had been received by the Complainant.  In that view of the matter, the impugned direction cannot be sustained.  

9.       Resultantly, the Revision Petition is allowed; the impugned order is set aside; and the Complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.