DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Consumer Complaint No.: 139 of 2017
Date of Institution : 11.10.2017
Date of Decision : 16.11.2018
Prem Chand aged about 66 years son of Kishori Lal resident of Model Town, Tapa, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Tapa Mandi, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Present: Sh. Anuj Mohan counsel for the complainant.
Sh. J.K. Kapil counsel for the opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Smt. Inderjeet Kaur : Member
2. Sh. Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
(ORDER BY TEJINDER SINGH BHANGU MEMBER AND INDERJEET KAUR MEMBER)
The complainant namely Prem Chand son of Kishori Lal has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (In short the Act) against Oriental Bank of Commerce, Tapa (hereinafter called as the opposite party).
2. It is alleged that the complainant is a senior citizen and had opened Progressive Deposit (PD) Account with the opposite party bank on 24.9.2012 for a monthly installment of Rs. 1,300/- for a period of five years with interest at the rate of 9.7% per annum. The opposite party has allotted PD Account No. 06413161003461 to the complainant for the said scheme. The opposite party also issued a pass book to the complainant in this context and rate of interest is also mentioned in the pass book as 9.7% per annum. In the said pass book the date of opening of account has been mentioned as 24.9.2012 but inadvertently the date of maturity has been mentioned as 24.9.2013. It is further submitted that said amount of Rs. 1,300/- was deducted every month from the Saving Bank Account bearing No. 06412121001615 of the complainant from 24.9.2012 to 26.7.2017 and in this way 59 installments of Rs. 1,300/- each was paid by the complainant in his said PD account from the saving account of the complainant maintained in the same bank.
3. It is further alleged that the amount which was deposited by the complainant with the opposite party after adding interest at the said rate of 9.7% per annum becomes Rs. 1,01,500/- but after the maturity of scheme the opposite party only paid Rs. 85,766/- to the complainant and opposite party bank has not paid the full amount alongwith agreed rate of interest and paid Rs. 15,734/- less amount to the complainant.
4. It is further alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant made repeated requests to the opposite party to pay the said amount of Rs. 15,734/- but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
1) The opposite party may be directed to pay the amount of Rs. 15,734/- to the complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony.
3) To pay Rs. 11,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
4) Any other relief which this Forum deems fit.
5. Upon notice of this complaint the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking legal objections on the grounds that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. Further, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e Head Office of the opposite party bank. Further, complainant is estopped from filing the present complaint by his own act and conduct and complaint is time barred.
6. On merits, it is admitted that complainant had opened Progressive Deposit Account and also maintained saving account with the opposite party. As per record complainant had opened the account for one year only and not for five years and he was entitled to get 9.7% interest only for one year. It is denied that complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 1,01,500/- and bank has paid Rs. 15,734/- less amount to him. The interest is calculated by the computer so there is no chance of paying less amount. So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant never raised any demand from the opposite party and never gave anything in writing. Lastly, they prayed for the dismissal of the present case with costs.
7. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copies of bank passbooks Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.
8. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Gian Murti Bansal Branch Manager Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.
10. It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant is having Progressive Deposit Account with the opposite party for a monthly installment of Rs. 1,300/- and also having a Saving Account with them. It is also admitted that the complainant is entitled to get 9.7% interest on the Progressive Deposit Account from the opposite party. Further, the opposite party has not denied in their written version that the bank has auto debited 59 installments from the Saving Account of the complainant and deposited in his Progressive Deposit Account.
11. The opposite party bank has taken a plea that this Progressive Deposit Account bearing No. 06413161003461 is only for one year and its maturity date is clearly mentioned on the pass book Ex.C-2 as 24.9.2013 but they failed to prove that if the Progressive Deposit Account is for one year then why the bank has debited 59 monthly installments from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant bearing No. 06412121001615 for about five years which are clearly mentioned in photocopies of passbooks Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4. The complainant was in impression that the Progressive Deposit Account is for five years so he never opposed for debiting the installment in his Saving Account. The system of the bank is under the control of the opposite party and complainant has nothing to do with it. So, if the bank has debited these installments wrongly even then it is clear cut deficiency in service on their part. Further, the bank has not produced any document vide which it can prove that the Progressive Deposit Account is for one year. Opposite party has not brought on record any Account Opening Form duly signed by the complainant to prove their plea that this account was opened only for one year. We also observed that in this Progressive Deposit Account alongwith auto credit of installments the interest was also being credited on regular intervals. In this way, the opposite party failed to prove its plea taken by them in the written version and arguments. On the other hand the complainant has proved his case beyond any doubt by placing on record photocopies of pass books of his saving account Ex.C-2 to C-4 in which the opposite party debited 59 installments from his account. In this way, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.
12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay the maturity amount to the complainant of Progressive Deposit Account on the basis of five years account after deducting the amount already paid to him and also amount of one installment as the complainant has paid 59 installments instead of 60 installments alongwith interest as applicable on five years Progressive Deposit Account from the date of maturity till realization. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation on account of mental, physical and economic harassment to the complainant and litigation expenses. The compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
16th Day of November 2018
(Inderjeet Kaur)
Member
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu) Member
