DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.47 of 20-02-2015

Decided on 18-09-2015

Parbodh Kumar S/o Sham Lal Aggarwal R/o # 12, New Shakti Nagar, St.No.1, Bathinda, Tehsil & District, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Oriental Bank of Commerce, (A Govt. of India Undertaking) having its registered office at Gurgaon, through its General Manager/Executive Director.

2.The Regional Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hazi Rattan Chowk, Bathinda.

3.The Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Court Complex Branch, Bathinda.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.N.M Aggarwal, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Sh.Rajneesh Kumar Rampal, counsel for opposite

parties.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Parbodh Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Oriental Bank of Commerce and Others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 25.1.2010, he deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac with opposite party No.3 as term deposit for the period of 5 years, which was duly acknowledged by opposite party No.3 by issuing TDR No.0877258, account No.09553411000295 with customer ID No.24874376 dated 25.1.2010 under the signatures of opposite party No.3 on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 and 2. It was specifically written in the term deposit receipt, having been issued to the complainant, that the deposited amount shall be paid back to the complainant alongwith interest at the agreed rate of 8.25% per annum i.e. maturity amount payable was recorded to be Rs.1,50,426/- on due date i.e. 25.1.2015. The complainant received a massage from opposite parties on his mobile handset on 25.1.2015 intimating him that the aforesaid term deposit receipt issued in his name is maturing for payment and he may give option for its renewal or encashment.

3. It is alleged that after due date, the complainant approached opposite party No.3 in the branch office on 27.1.2015 and by tendering the original term deposit receipt requested opposite party No.3 to make him the payment of maturity amount. The concerned official working in the branch of opposite party No.3 checked the particulars of TDR by operating the computer and refused to make the payment of the maturity value on the pretext that the said TDR has been attached by the Railway road branch of the bank with the locker hired by the complainant. Railway Road Branch of opposite parties checked its record from the computer and disclosed that no attachment of any kind has been made by its branch. Opposite party No.3 has wrongly refused to make the payment with some ulterior motive. Railway Road Branch of the bank has issued a certificate to the complainant regarding the allotment of the locker No.AA46 and receipt of rent of the locker up to 31.3.2015.

4. It is further alleged that the complainant has also moved an application in writing to opposite parties whereupon the concerned official has specifically written that there is lien of locker on the said FDR by other branch. It is also alleged that the complainant is senior citizen. On account of unnecessarily harassment and botheration at the hands of opposite party No.3, the complainant fell ill and has gone in depression & has suffered mental agony for which he was rushed by his family members to Wadi Hospital, Bathinda and after examining the complainant on 27.1.2015, Dr.Tejpal Singh Wadi observed that he is under stress, his blood pressure has increased, which has resulted into headache and he was advised ECG etc. After carrying on the necessary investigation, the complainant was prescribed treatment mentioned in the prescription and was advised bed rest for 5 days and thereafter review/re-examination. The complainant had to take the requisite test, prescribed medicines as advised by the doctor on account of which he has been burdened with unnecessarily and had to incur monetary expenses. The complainant has also got issued a notice dated 3/4.2.2015 requesting opposite parties to make him the payment of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages within a week from the receipt of notice, but they have failed to meet his genuine claim and rather sent a message that the payment of TDR amount will not be made to him.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and claimed compensation/liquidated damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental tension, agony, expenses incurred on medical treatment, unnecessarily botheration, harassment and humiliation and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.11,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing their joint written version. In written version, opposite parties raised the legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi or cause-of-action to file this complaint. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands and has intentionally suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum. The complainant is estopped from filing this complaint by his own act, conduct, admission, omission and acquiescence. The complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant.

6. On merits also, opposite parties have controverted all the material averments. The stand of opposite parties is that due to technical error in the computer system, it was shown that TDR has been attached by Railway Road Branch and complainant was requested to approach Railway Road Branch and when he approached Railway Road Branch of OBC, the technical error disappeared and he was requested to receive the matured amount. The concerned official of the bank also tendered unconditional apology to the complainant in writing for the inconvenience suffered by him and he was fully satisfied with the occurrence of this technical error as he himself has seen the lien in the computer at that time. The complainant is at liberty to get the amount encashed at anytime during the banking hours. All other averments are categorically controverted.

In the end, opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

8. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit, (Ex.C1); photocopy of TDR, (Ex.C2); photocopy of message, (Ex.C3); photocopy of TDR against locker, (Ex.C4); photocopy of certificate (Ex.C5); photocopy of prescription, (Ex.C6); photocopy of complaint (Ex.C7); postal receipts (Ex.C8 and Ex.C9); photocopy of reply to legal notice, (Ex.C10); photocopy of legal notice (Ex.C11) and copy of account statement, (Ex.C12) and submitted written arguments.

9. Opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Mehar Singh Ranga dated 27.7.2015, (Ex.OP1/1) and submitted written arguments.

10. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.

11. It is submitted by learned counsel for complainant that the material facts are not in controversy. It is not disputed that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1 lac with opposite parties vide TDR in question. This amount alongwith interest was payable on maturity. The due date was 25.1.2015. It is also not disputed that on 27.1.2015, when the complainant approached opposite party No.3 to get encashed TDR, it denied to release the amount by stating that TDR is attached with other account, but no record is placed on file to establish this fact. There is no question of attaching the TDR in question. Therefore, there is categorically deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has also brought on record his prescription slip, (Ex.C6), which proves that the complainant has suffered depression and was advised rest for 5 days.

12. Learned counsel for complainant further submitted that although, in written version opposite parties pleaded that they are ready to release the maturity due amount, but there is nothing to show that the complainant was ever intimated to collect the amount with interest. As such, opposite parties cannot escape from their liability only by pleading that the complainant can get encashed his TDR amount.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has submitted that the complaint is abuse of process of law. There is no malafide intention on the part of opposite parties. There is only technical error, due to which the TDR of the complainant is shown attached with other account. As soon as the error was removed, the complainant was offered encashment of TDR.

14. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite parties that the complainant has himself produced reply to the legal notice dated 3.2.2015. In this legal notice, opposite parties have categorically mentioned that that the complainant is at liberty to get encashed TDR during the banking hours. Therefore, there remained no purpose for filing complaint when opposite parties have already offered the complainant to get encashed his TDR during the banking hours. In written version, opposite parties have revealed that the complainant is at liberty to get his TDR encashed at anytime.

15. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

16. Admitted facts are that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.1 lac as TDR. The maturity date of this TDR was 25.1.2015. It is not disputed that on 27.1.2015, when the complainant approached opposite party No.3 for encashment of TDR, it denied to release the TDR amount on the ground that TDR is attached with other account. Opposite parties admitted that this was due to technical error. The fact is that TDR is not released on due date. Of-course, in written reply to legal notice, opposite parties had given liberty to the complainant to get encashed his TDR at anytime during the banking hours, but there is nothing on record to show that after removal of technical error, opposite parties have offered the complainant to get encashed his TDR. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

17. For the reasons recorded above, the complainant is partly accepted with Rs.1000/- as cost/compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to release TDR amount to the complainant as and when he approaches them to complete formalities required for encashment of TDR and further directed to pay interest @ 8.25% per annum to the complainant, which is payable on his deposit at the relevant time till 10.2.2015 i.e. date of filing of reply to legal notice alongwith cost/compensation of Rs.1000/-.

18. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

19. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:- (M.P Singh Pahwa)

18-09-2015 President

(Sukhwinder Kaur) (Jarnail Singh)

Member Member