DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 670/2014
D.No.____________________ Dated: _________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHAMIK NAG,
S/o LATE Sh. SUNIL KUMAR NAG,
R/o J-D 16-D, SFS FLATS,
DAKSHINI PITAMPURA,
NEW DELHI-110088. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER,
SECTOR-8, ROHINI, NEW DELHI … OPPOSITE PARTY
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 02.06.2014 Date of decision: 03.01.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant an ex-employee of OP and maintained a saving bank account with OP’s Rohini branch since long and in recent months, certain charges had been levied to the account of the complainant at the branch for which the complainant sought reversal and the branch of OP as well as Controlling Office refused to refund the charges under an excuse that the complainant had been removed
CC No.670/2014 Page 1 of 5
from the services of OP. Thereafter, on pursuing the matter and asking for documentary evidence, OP has not cared to send the same inspite of the repeated pleas in the matter. On 08.05.2014, the complainant approached the branch for booking of a monthly income fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- at ex-employee preferential rate of interest i.e. 10% p.a. which the bank has denied and from the date of leaving the bank some 10 years ago and the bank has allowed the preferential rate on the deposit placed with it as per the service rules of the bank and to this day, the complainant held deposit at preferential rate of interest as per eligibility as allowed and as contracted. The complainant further alleged that the present branch Manager has refused to allow the preferential rate on the deposit and the entire matter was laid before the Chief Customer Service Officer of the bank who closed the case with following remarks: “the eligibility of an ex-employee to the said benefit of higher interest rate on deposit and in service charge is governed by service rules of the bank as applicable to him which is not within the purview of the CCSO, the schedule of service charges is displayed on the bank’s website as well as the branch’s notice board, however, if anything excess has been levied the matter may be taken up with the branch and into Regional Authority and thereafter, if unresolved, it to be referred to the office of the CCSO as per the Bank’s “Grievance Redressal Policy”, the monthly income fixed deposit has already been made with effect from the date of
CC No.670/2014 Page 2 of 5
request and as such the issue stands resolved. During the course of the correspondence entered into by the complainant with the branch, its Controlling officer and the complaint redressal department and the CCSO, the complainant asked for the information/documents/explanation of the Regional Officer of the bank and its subsidiary superior offices as applicable which too has been denied to the complainant.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint against OP for redressal of his grievance against OP.
3. Earlier, OP has been contesting the case and filed reply/written statement wherein OP submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the same is false, frivolous and misconceived and there is no cause of action and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. OP further submitted that it is the admitted case of the complainant that he had been removed from the service of OP and as such is not eligible for additional interest on deposit in terms of bank’s deposit policy 2013 circulated vide HO Circular No.HO/CS&P/40/2013-14/447 dated 29.07.2013 and subsequent modifications issued by HO vide Circular No. HO/CS&P/39/2014-15/382 dated 14.08.2014. OP further submitted that the complainant was in the service of OP and he had been removed from the service of OP and hence the complainant cannot be treated as retired staff and he is not entitled for the benefit given to the retired staff of OP and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
CC No.670/2014 Page 3 of 5
However, OP failed to file its evidence despite giving opportunities and right of OP to file its evidence was closed vide order dated 06.04.2015 and subsequently none for OP appeared and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 10.11.2016.
4. Complainant filed rejoinder and denied the submissions of OP and submitted that he joined the services of OP as a Probationary Officer and had to quit the service of OP and the bank had paid him beneficial rate of interest on his deposit with OP amounting to 1% above the card rate and w.e.f. 08.05.2014 the bank has declined to pay him the beneficial rate.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence.
6. This Forum has considered the of the complainant and OP in the light of evidence of the complainant and documents placed on record. The complainant has not disputed the circulars of OP bank with respect to Bank’s Deposit Policy 2013. The complainant has also not disputed the fact that he was removed from service by the bank. The complainant in support of his version that he being the staff member of OP was entitled to additional rate of interest placed on record the copies of various Circulars issued by the head office of the bank. In this regards, the circulars issued by head office of the bank bearing nos. HO/P&D/85/93-94/418 dated 08.03.1994 and HO/P&D/32/2006-07/447 dated 27.12.2006 have been placed on record. Both these circulars provide the meaning of “retired staff
CC No.670/2014 Page 4 of 5
members of bank”. These circulars clearly provides that “retired staff members of the bank” will not include those staff members who are compulsorily retired or are removed from the service on account of disciplinary proceedings.
7. The various circulars placed on record by the complainant only provides for additional rate of interest to be given to the staff members and retired staff members of the bank. There is no denial that OP bank has not issued the circulars/clarifications dated 08.03.1994 and 27.12.2006. Thus, the complainant has failed to prove his case that he was entitled to additional interest on deposits being staff member of OP bank. Thus, this Forum is of opinion that the complainant has failed to prove his case on merits and the complaint is accordingly dismissed.
8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rdday of January, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET
CC No.670/2014 Page 5 of 5
