| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA C.C. No. 117 of 24-04-2018 Decided on : 04-12-2018 Abhishek Jindal aged about 34 years S/o Sh. Kamlesh Jindal R/o H. No. 19434, Street No. 2, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda now R/o A-901, Krish Vatika, Alwar Bye-Pass Road, Near Power Grid, Bhiwandi 301019. …...Complainant Versus Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bank Street Branch, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager Oriental Bank of Commerce, Head Office in Punjab at Plot No. I-6, Sector 5, Panchkula (Haryana) through Authorized Person ( Deleted vide order dated 25-4-2018).
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Quorum : Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President Sh. Jarnail Singh, Member Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur Member Present : For the complainant : Sh. Mohit Bansal, Advocate. For the opposite parties : Sh. R K Rampal, Advocate, for OP No. 1. OP No. 2 deleted. O R D E R M. P. Singh Pahwa, President Abhishek Jindal, complainant (here-in-after referred to as 'complainant') has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Oriental Bank of Commerce and another (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties'). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is holding account No. 01482081000046 with opposite party No.1. In the last week of May 2015, he visited opposite party No.1 to inquire about rate of interest provided by Oriental Bank of commerce against fixed deposits. The officials of opposite party No.1 induced the complainant to provide interest @ 8.5% p.a. against fixed deposit of Rs.10.00 Lacs and CDR are auto renewal for three years. The same shall be renewed by computer generated system of the bank with continuity from the date of becoming mature until and unless the same is got encashed. The complainant disclosed the concerned official of opposite party No.1 that he is resident of Bhiwandi. The opposite party No. 1 further assured him that he will not be required to personally visit the bank premises for renewal of CDR every year, for three years. Bonafidely believing the assurance of the officials of opposite party No.1, the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.10.00 Lacs with opposite party No.1 in the shape of CDR vide CDR No.4663354 dated 3-6-2015, effective from 2-6-2015 vide A/c No.01483141000051 having maturity value of Rs.10,87,748/-. It is asserted that CDR was mature on 2-6-2016. As assured by the officials of the opposite parties, the same was automatically renewed for one year w.e.f. 2-6-2016 to 2-6-2017 by the computer generated system of the opposite parties. When complainant visited opposite party No.1 on 17-6-2016, entry regarding auto-renewal of the CDR was made by the concerned clerk of opposite party No.1 in the CDR manually and specifically assured that CDR shall be automatically further renewed by the computer generated system of the opposite parties on 2-6-2017 for further period of one year. The CDR shall be continuously renewed by the opposite parties until and unless the same is got encashed by complainant. It is pleaded that complainant could not contact opposite party No.1 after 17-6-2017 and could not inquire the status of CDR. In the month of March 2018, he visited Bathinda and contacted opposite party No.1 to inquire about the status of CDR but to his utter surprise, it revealed that his CDR has not been automatically renewed by the opposite parties w.e.f. 2-6-2017 although it is auto-renewal CDR. It is alleged that the opposite parties failed to renew his CDR. The complainant requested the concerned officials of opposite party No.1 to renew the CDR with continuity w.e.f. 2-6-2017 and to update the amount of CDR, but the official flatly refused to accede to his request and proclaimed that it cannot be renewed w.e.f. 2-6-2017. If the complainant is interested, it may be got renewed from the current date. The opposite parties never sent any message to complainant that CDR could not be automatically renewed and never intimated him to personally visit the office of opposite party No.1 for renewal of CDR or for its encashment. Its amount was not credited in the account of the complainant after 2-6-2017. The complainant repeatedly requested the opposite parties to admit his lawful claim and to renew the CDR w.e.f. 2-6-2017, but to no effect. The complainant also lodged complaints in this regard with opposite parties No. 2&3 through e-mails, but to no effect. It is also pleaded that due to said act of the opposite parties, the complainant is suffering from great mental tension, agony, botheration, and harassment. For these sufferings, he has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to Rs. 11,000/- as cost of litigation with direction to the opposite parties to renew CDR w.e.f. 2-6-2017 or to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- on account of loss suffered by complainant for loss of interest. Hence, this complaint. In view of statement of learned counsel for complainant, name of opposite party No. 2 was deleted. Upon notice, opposite party No. 1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that complaint has been filed only to injure goodwill and reputation of the opposite parties. The complaint is false, frivolous, vexatious to the knowledge of complainant. The opposite parties are entitled to special costs of Rs. 10,000/- u/s 26 of the 'Act'. That intricate questions of law & facts are involved. It requires voluminous documents and evidence. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum. He is not entitled to any relief. As per opposite party true, facts are that the complainant approached opposite party No. 1 for investing the amount in FDR under plan 'CAPITAL GAIN-CDR'. After getting himself aware about the features of plan, he showed his willingness to invest an amount of Rs.20.00 Lacs in total. He further opted to invest the amount of Rs.20.00 Lacs in two CDR of Rs. 10.00 Lacs each. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.20.00 Lacs in two CDRs i.e. Rs .10.00 Lacs in CDR No. 4663353 dated 3-6-2015 and Rs.10.00 Lacs in CDR No. 4663354 dated 3-6-2015, both effective from 2-6-2015 initially for a period of one year vide two account nos. 01483141000044 and 01483141000051 respectively. It was made clear to the complainant that the plan opted by complainant is `CAPITAL GAIN-CDR' . The facility of renewal is not available in the said plan. The complainant made himself ready to get the said CDRs renewed by making himself personally available in the Branch. After completion of one year, he personally visited the office of opposite party No.1 and got his CDRs renewed manually on the backside of CDR. The concerned clerk inadvertently and mistakenly while manually making the entry of renewal mentioned the word 'Auto'. The complainant while getting undue benefit of the said mistake, has filed the present complaint by concealing all true and material facts. The further legal objections are that the complainant is estopped by his own act, conduct & acquiescence from filing the complaint. He has no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint against the parties. That the complaint is not maintainable in its present form and lastly that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. On merits also, the opposite party has controverted all the material averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in legal objections and detailed above. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint. Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of his claim, complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 7-8-2018 (Ex. C-1), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-2), photocopy of CDR (Ex. C-3), photocopy of account statement (Ex. C-4), photocopy of e-mails (Ex. C-5 & Ex. C-6) and photocopy of CDRs (Ex. C-7 to Ex. C-9). In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence photocopy of circular (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of CDR (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of voucher (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of account statement (Ex. OP-1/6), affidavit dated 19-6-2018 of Puneet Garg (Ex. OP-1/7), photocopy of e-mail (Ex. OP-1/8) and closed the evidence. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lacs in the shape of CDR. The version of the complainant is that this CDR was opted for auto renewal till encashment. The complainant has placed on record copy of CDR (Ex. C-3). This document proves that facility of renewal with retrospective effect is not available to overdue deposits after 14 days from the date of maturity. The maturity date is 2-6-2016. Therefore, this facility of renewal was not available after 16-6-2016. The opposite party has renewed CDR on 17-6-2016 i.e. even after expiry of 14 days and it is manually mentioned as to 'Auto Renewal'. The opposite party has also admitted this fact although the opposite party has stated that it was inadvertently mentioned as 'Auto Renewal'. Admittedly documentary evidence has to prevail upon oral evidence. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that opposite party has tried to prove that CDRs are not 'Auto Renewal', but the complainant has placed on record other CDRs (Ex. C-7, Ex. C-8 & Ex. C-9 which are also renewed from time to time. The opposite party has placed on record one specimen CDR (Ex. OP-1/3 & Ex. OP-1/4), although to prove that in case of auto renewal document, it is so mentioned on the CDR itself. Therefore, this fact also proves that there is no bar for auto renewal in case of CDR also. The opposite party has never intimated the complainant regarding CDR has already become mature and is not going to be renewed thereafter. All these facts support the case of the complainant. Therefore, it is to be accepted that CDR of the complainant is to be treated as continuous till it is got encashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainant has cited 2010(3) CPR 454 case titled Satish Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Bank of Maharashtra and others. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that complainant wants to take benefit of inadvertence of bank official. It is apparent that it is a inadvertence/mistake. In the copy of CDR (Ex. C-3), word 'Auto' is mentioned under the column of 'Signatures'. The official was to put signatures and not to reveal the status of the CDR. The opposite party has also placed on record copy of certificate (Ex. OP-1/1) which proves that Capital Gain Deposits are not 'Auto Renewal'. Even otherwise in the case of Auto Renewal, it is specifically mentioned on the document itself. Ex. OP-1/3 and Ex. OP-1/4 are other CDRs. It is specifically mentioned that these are 'Auto Renewal'. Therefore, inference is to be drawn that CDRs availed by the complainant were not 'Auto-renewal'. As such, complaint is liable to be dismissed with special cost. We have carefully gone through the record, case law cited by learned counsel for the complainant and have considered the rival contentions. The admitted facts are that complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 10.00 Lacs in the shape of CDR with the opposite party on 3-6-2015. The version of the complainant is that it was 'Auto-renewal' and the opposite party has denied this version. The controversy is only to the point whether CDR obtained by the complainant was subject to 'Auto-renewal' or otherwise. Ex. C-3 is the photocopy of the original CDR. Of course it is nowhere mentioned 'subject to auto-renewal' but the condition printed on this document reveals that facility of renewal with retrospective effect is not available to overdue deposit(s) after 14 days from the date of maturity. The date of maturity was 2-6-2016, As per this condition, facility of renewal with retrospective effect was not available after 16-6-2016 but this document further proves that same was renewed w.e.f. 2-6-2016 on 17-6-2016 i.e. after prescribed period of 14 days. This document also contains further columns of signatures but instead of signatures of the official, it is mentioned as 'Auto-renewal'. This fact is also admitted by the opposite party in written reply although as per opposite party it was so mentioned inadvertently. When this fact is taken into consideration alongwith other factors i.e. renewal of CDR after 16-6-2016, the inference is that it was 'Auto-renewal'. Even otherwise documentary evidence is to prevail upon oral evidence. The documentary evidence find mentioned 'Auto-renewal'. The opposite party has denied the claim of the complainant under Circular regarding 'Deposit Policy' (Ex. OP-1/1). For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of this circular is reproduced as under :- “Chapter No. 12 – Renewal of Term Deposits”
12A) Auto Renewal of Term Deposits On Due Date The Fixed Deposits are automatically renewed on the date of maturity in case there is specific mandate from the customer in this regard. In case any instructions is not received from the customer, after giving notice, the deposit will be renewed excluding deposits like tax saving deposits. Capital gain deposit, Bulk Deposit, Inter Bank Deposit, Online fixed Deposits, Deposits under lien and Variable/Progressive deposits etc., for the same period of time as the matured deposit at the prevailing rate of interest” A perusal of this circular also reveals that this debars auto renewal of CDR also when there is no specific instruction regarding auto-renewal. This interpretation further stands corroborated from the documents produced by the opposite party. The opposite party produced on record copy of other CDRs (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4) although to prove that in case of auto-renewal, it is specifically mentioned but this fact further proves that there is no bar for auto-renewal incase of CDR also. The circular quoted by the opposite party also does not support it. The net conclusion is that complainant availed CDR with auto-renewal and it is to be auto-renewed till it is got encashed. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs. 10,000/- as cost and compensation. The opposite party is directed to treat the CDR in question as 'Auto-renewal” till it is got encashed. The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room. Announced : 04-12-2018 (M.P.Singh Pahwa ) President (Jarnail Singh ) Member (Sukhwinder Kaur) Member
| |
