Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/308/2023

CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

PARVEEN GARG - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY SAPEHIA

19 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDL. BENCH]

 

 

Appeal No.	:	308 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	30.10.2023
Date of Decision	:	19.04.2024

 

1.       Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, H.O. Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

2.       General Manager, Punjab National Bank, Retail Banking Division (Resource) H.O. Plot No.4, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Delhi.

3.       The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Zonal Office, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh U.T.

4.       The Circle Head/DGM, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Chandigarh Circle, PNB House, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh U.T.

5.       The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, B.O. Kishangarh, U.T., Chandigarh.

6.       The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, B.O. Sector 20, Panchkula.

          Appellants No. 1 to 6 through Sh. Pankaj Garg, Senior Manager, PNB, B.O. Kishangarh, U.T. Chandigarh.

….. Appellants

 

V e r s u s

 

1.       Parveen Garg s/o Sh. Brij Lal Garg, resident of Flat No.591, Trishla Plus Homes, Peer Muchhalla, P.O. Dhakoli 160104 Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

….Respondent

 

2.       The Banking Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, 4^th Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh U.T. 160017.

…. Proforma Respondent

 

BEFORE:

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:    Sh. Ajay Sapehia, Advocate for the Appellants.

Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 06.09.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it partly allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/453/2022 in the following terms: -

 

“10]   Taking into consideration the above discussion and findings, the present complaint is partly allowed with directions to OPs No.1 to 6 to grant additional interest of 0.50% p.a. on the FDRs in question of the complainant from the date of his attaining the age of 60 years till the date of maturity.  The OPs No.1 to 6 are also directed to pay the complainant compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- for causing mental & physical harassment along with litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-. 

          This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 6 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

                   11]     The complaint qua OP No.7 stands dismissed.”

 

2]             For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3]                Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant/Respondent that he was retired in the year 2014 and got retirement dues to the tune of ₹34.36 Lakhs. He deposited the said amount with OPs/Appellants in the shape of 5 FDRs of different amount for a period of 10 years (120 months) to be matured in the year 2024.  It was averred that at the time of deposit of the said amount with OPs as FDRs, the complainant was 56 years & 9 months old and he attained the age of 60 years i.e. status of Senior Citizen on 22.10.2017 during the said FDRs period, therefore, per Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme of the OPs dated 01.08.2011 he was eligible & entitled to get the benefit of 0.50% additional rate of interest over & above the contracted rate @10% p.a. on his all FDRs after the period of 22.10.2017 being a senior citizen.  It was submitted that the Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme was exclusively for depositors who were above 55 years but below 60 years, so the complainant, who was 56 years & 9 months old at the time of deposit of the amount in said FDRs was by default eligible for the benefit of additional interest of 0.50% over and above the contract rate of 10% p.a. It was also averred that the complainant also did not give any mandate to open the said FDRs under any specific scheme such as Sugam, MBFD etc. but the OP No.2 vide circular dated 17.10.2014 clarified that benefit of additional rate of interest of 0.50% permissible under the prospective senior citizen scheme would also be provided to the FDRs open under PNB Sugam, Special FDR etc. The matter was also brought to the notice of Banking Ombudsman, who vide order/proceedings dated 29.04.2019 observed that application of 0.50% interest was automatically available to the complainant at the age of 60 years and decided that FDRs of the complainant be converted to Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme and the complainant be granted benefit of additional interest of 0.50% over and above the contracted rate of 10% p.a., but that too was not complied with by the OP Bank.  The complainant also represented the OP bank a number of times in his regard, but to no avail. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

4]                The OPs No.1 to 6/Appellants contested the claim of the Complainant before Ld. District Commission by filing their joint written version, inter alia, admitting the factual matrix about the said deposit of the amount and its FDRs with them in respect of the complainant. It was asserted that the complainant was their ex-staff member and was well aware of the schemes of the bank and procedure for opening of FDRs.  It was pleaded that the complainant did not mention regarding availing of Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme, in the application form, so answering OPs cannot act or initiate any facility in the absence of written instruction from its customer.  It was submitted that automatic application in computer system was to be done only if the customer had opted for Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme and then on attaining status of Senior Citizen, the computer system would have automatically applied additional rate of interest.  It was submitted that in the absence of written instruction on application form how computer system would know that the FDR holder has become Senior Citizen on that specific date.  It was stated that it was clearly mentioned in Ann.C-1 at Para No.14 that entering of date of birth of the depositor is mandatory, which was not done by complainant per Ann.C-5.  It was also stated that for availing Prospective Senior Citizen Scheme, the prospective Senior Citizen were required to submit their request along with age proof.  It was pleaded that complainant was eligible for the scheme and benefit of it only if he had applied for the same. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Parties No.1 to 6 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

5]                The OP No.7/Proforma Respondent has also filed written version stating that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.7; OP No.7 was neither a party to the transaction between the complainant and the other OPs nor was it liable in any way to the complainant under any provisions of law.  It was pleaded that complainant is not “consumer” qua OP No.7 and thus the complaint qua it is not maintainable. On these ground, the consumer complaint was sought to be defended

 

6]                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. District Commission partly allowed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

 

7]                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties No.1 to 6.

 

8]                We have heard Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

9]                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

10]              After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

11]              It is the case of the Appellants that the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record and also the mandatory guidelines and banking procedure, which resulted into perverse finding. It has been also submitted that the Ld. District Commission lost sight of the fact that since the Complainant has not opened any account under the Prospective Senior Citizen Term Deposit Scheme or opted for the same, hence he was not entitled for interest/benefits of the said Scheme.  It has been argued that by not appreciating the aforesaid factual aspects, the Ld. District Commission accepted the Complaint thereby committed a grave error and thus, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Conversely, it has been contended on behalf of the Respondent/ Complainant that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference.

12]              Per material available on record, the complainant was an ex-employee/staff of the Appellant Bank.  Generally, at the time of opening any fixed deposits, the Bank insists for documents which carry date of birth i.e. PAN Card and Aadhar Card.  However, in the present case, the bank was having the date of birth details of the complainant being ex-staff/employee of the bank.  Upon becoming a senior citizen after attaining the age of 60 years whether the complainant would automatically entitled to get the benefits of additional interest of 0.50% per annum on the FDRs in question, over & above the contracted interest? In this regard, the Ld. District Commission, in the light of circular issued by PNB, Resource Mobilisation Division, New Delhi on 17.10.2014 regarding Prospective Senior Citizen Term Deposit Scheme” which postulates to extend the advantage of Prospective Senior Citizen Term Deposit Scheme under various schemes so as to garner more & more depositors under the said scheme, has rightly held that the complainant was entitled to get additional interest of 0.50%, on the FDRs in question, from the date of his attaining the age of 60 years and by not granting the said benefit, the OPs No.1 to 6 have indulged in unfair trade practice and are deficient in providing service to the complainant. To our mind, no case is therefore made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. District Commission.

13]              No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

14]              It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

15]              In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

16]              All the pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed off accordingly.

 

17]              Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

18]              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

19.04.2024.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”