CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII

DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN

CASE NO.CC/247/20

          Date of Institution:-    01.02.2021

          Order Reserved on:- 01.10.2024

                        Date of Decision:-      08.11.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ratan SinghSolanki

S/o Lt. RoshanLal,

R/o W.Z.-913B,

Dada Dev Road Badiyal,

Vi & P.O. Palam,

New Delhi - 110045

.….. Complainant

VERSUS

Oriental Bank of Commerce (0464)

59, Vi& P.O. Palam

New Delhi – 110045

(Now Changed to)

Punjab National Bank

Palam Village Branch

Oriental (E-Lobby) Ltd.

…..Opposite Party

Suresh Kumar Gupta, President

1. The complainant has filed the complaint under Consumer Protection Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 17.11.2015 he has deposited a sum of Rs.5 lakh in the fixed deposit bearing account no.04643031074105 under senior citizen category with interest @8.25% p.a. On 07.06.2019, he has received a sum of Rs.635977/- after three years six months and twenty days. On 13.07.2015, he has deposited Rs.5 lakh in the fixed deposit bearing account no.04643031071234 under senior citizen category with interest @8.50% p.a. On 06.11.2019 he has received a sum of Rs.595705/- on the FDR after a period of four years three months and twenty three days. The period of latter FDR is more than the earlier FDR but he has got the less amount. He met with the bank officials to find out the reason and even made complaint to various authorities but in vain. Hence, this complaint.

2. OP put the appearanceon service but did not file the reply and accordingly proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.07.2022.

3. The complainant has filed his own affidavit in ex-parte evidence along with written submissions.

4. We have heard the complainant and perused the entire material on record.

5. The grievance of the complainant is that he has got the amount of Rs.5,95,705/- on the FDR dated 13.07.2015 on withdrawal after four years three months and twenty three days which is less though he has got a sum of Rs.6,35,977/- on the FDR dated 17.11.2015 of the same amount on withdrawal after three years six months and twenty days.

6. Para 3 of the written submissions filed by the complainant shows that the option of senior citizen and auto-renewal opted by him was abolished from the FDR certificate which resulted in a loss of Rs.1 lakh.
7. The complainant has placed on record the photocopy of the FDR dated 13.07.2015 of Rs.5 lakh with maturity date 13.07.2016 which shows that complainant will receive a sum of Rs.5,43,874/-.

8. The complainant has gone for auto-renewal of FDR and withdrawn the amount after four yearsthree months and twenty three days and received a sum of Rs.5,95,705/-.

9. The complainant has nowhere placed on record that rate of interest i.e. 8.50% p.a. has remained the same which was at the time of going for initial FDR. The FDRis handed over to the customer on every renewal but complainant has not placed the copy of the same on record in order to see the maturity date and maturity amount. The complainant should have at least brought on record the rate of interest in order to arrive at a conclusion that OP has wrongly calculated the amount on a particular rate of interest. The complainant has also not placed on record subsequent FDRs with reflects the rate of interest. The best possible evidence was with the complainant which is not placed on record which calls for adverse inference against the complainant.

10. The complainant has to prove his own case and to show that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP. The evidence led by the complainant is not sufficient to conclude that there was any deficiency of service on the part of OP. There is no merit in the complaint.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

• A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
• File be consigned to record room.
• Announced in the open court on 08.11.2024.