Punjab

Sangrur

CC/151/2015

Amrik Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Pb.& Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                     Complaint no. 151

Instituted on:  20.03.2015

                                                                     Decided on:    15.07.2015

 

Amrik Lal son of Shri Vasdev resident of village and post office Banbhaura via Amargarh, Near  Govt. Primary School, Tehsil Malerkotla, District Sangrur.      

                                                …. Complainant.      

                                         Versus

 

Punjab & Sind Bank, r/o village and post office Chaundan, Tehsil Malekrotla, District Sangrur.

                                              ….Opposite party.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:    Shri Rattan Verma,  Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTY      :     Shri L.K.Singla,  Advocate                     

 

 

Quorum

         

                        Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

K.C.Sharma, Member

Sarita Garg, Member

                                   

ORDER:  

 

K.C.Sharma, Member

 

1.             Amrik Lal, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that he got issued two FDRs  number 14/688 and 14/688 respectively for a period of 15 months from the OP but the OP had not been renewed the same as per automatically renewal scheme  and he came to know of this fact on 27.08.2014. Then the OP had  renewed the FDRs on 27.08.2014 and paid  the simple  rate of interest for the  FDR no. 14/688 for the period from 10.12.2009  to 27.08.2014 and for the FDR number 14/689  the simple rate of interest was paid for the period from 13.12.2009 to 27.08.2014  instead of paying the compound interest for this period. As such, the OP had paid less interest on both the FDRs i.e. Rs.32671/-.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to make the payment of interest i.e. Rs.32671/- as less paid,  

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant compensation   on account of mental agony, harassment and  litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OP, it is submitted that the complainant got issued  FDR No.14/688  for Rs.67,254/-  on 10.09.2008  for 15 months and  interest was payable  at 10% per annum and maturity value was Rs.76,091/- and got  issued FDR No.14/689  on 13.09.2008 for Rs.63,222/-  for  15 months and the interest was payable  @10% per annum  and the maturity  value  was Rs.71529/- .  Thereafter the complainant got renewed FDR No.14/688 on 10.12.2009  for 15 months  and said FDR was matured in March 2011 and the complainant got renewed  FDR No.14/689 on 13.12.2009 and the said FDR was matured in March 2011 but  complainant did not get renewed  the FDRs as the complainant never came to the bank till the date he got renewed  the  FDR on 27.08.2014.  As per  guidelines of Head Office, “ when  overdue period i.e. from the date of maturity till the date of renewal, both date inclusive exceed 14 days such overdue term deposits shall be renewed w.e.f. the date of presentation for a minimum period of 15 days or more as specified by the depositor beyond the date of presentation and interest  for the overdue period  shall be paid on the amount being renewed  equal to or less than the maturity value of the original deposit at the rate prevailing on the date of maturity or date of renewal as applicable for the period for which the deposit is renewed,  whichever is the least for both categories  of FDRs i.e.  simple and scheme FDR, thus interest has been rightly paid @9% per annum. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

3.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to  Ex.C-11 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OP has tendered documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed evidence.

4.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the payment of interest on the fixed deposit receipt of the complainant issued by the OP under auto renewal scheme.

5.             The version of the complainant is that he obtained two FDRs number  14/688  and 14/689 which are Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-3 respectively for a period  of 15 months but OP  had not been renewing the same  because of the automatic renewal scheme  and he came to know of this fact on 27.08.2014. Then  the OP had renewed  the FDR on 27.08.2014  and had paid the simple rate of interest for the FDR no. 14/688 for the period from 10.12.2009 to 27.08.2014  and for the FDR no.14/689 the simple rate of interest was paid from 13.12.2009  to 27.08.2014  instead of paying the compound interest for this period.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant  has vehemently argued that the bank had paid the interest as per guideline issued by the bank from time to time and even Banking Ombudsman has also filed the complaint of the complainant and same is document Ex. OP-2 and further in support of his version the OP has  placed on record document Ex.OP-3.

7.             On  the perusal of the document Ex.OP-3, we find that the existing guideline  mentioned at serial number 1 is “  When a term deposit is renewed on maturity, interest rate for the period specified by the depositor is applicable on the date of maturity is applied. Accordingly where bank has the mandate for automatic renewal or the customer has in possession FDR bearing the Automatic Renewal Clause, FDR shall be renewed for an identical period on its due date at the interest rate applicable on the date of maturity for the period it is renewed.” The documents Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-6  which are the backside for the FDRs in question have also similar mention at clause -4  of the document  and it states that “ this deposit  will be automatically renewed on the maturity date for an identical period at the applicable rate of interest on the date of maturity unless instructions to the contrary are received from depositor.”

8.             In the present complaint, the complainant  has deposited the amount in auto renewal scheme and as such he has not visited the OP for renewal of the same on every maturity date with the hope  the OP may have renewed the FDRs from time to time at prevalent rate of interest.  So, after the first making of the FDR which was made for 15 months the complainant visited the bank on 27.08.2014 and as the OP had not renewed the FDR from time to time so he requested them  to do the needful but the OP had renewed the same from 27.08.2014 to 27.08.2015 after paying the simple rate of interest for the period the FDR was not renewed. On this the complainant has taken up the matter with the concerned authority as the documents Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and  a complaint was also lodged  to the Banking Ombudsman but the same was declined.  In support of his version the complainant has also placed on record document Ex.C-7 which is an envelope  of the FDR which is issued  under the automatic renewal  scheme  as the FDRs in question were  handed over to the complainant in that envelope.

9.             From the facts mentioned above, we find that the act of the OP is clearly in contravention of the clause under 4 of the document Ex.C-4 Ex.C-6 and clause number 1 of document Ex.OP-3. So, the OP is not only deficient in service but has also indulged in unfair trade practice by violating  the terms and conditions and has breached the contract. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1557 of 2004 has held on 17.01.2013 in Export Credit Corporation of India Limited Vs. M/s Garg Sons International, that courts are expected to give paramount importance to the terms of insurance contract entered into between the parties.

10.           In the present complaint also, the OP has violated the terms and conditions and had not renewed the fixed deposit receipt of the complainant  from time to time resulting into financial  loss to the complainant and has also compelled the complainant to seek legal remedy for his rightful and just concern.

11.           So, accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OP to pay compound interest at the applicable rate of interest for the period for which the FDRs have not been renewed as the amount was lying with the OP. We further order the OP to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  being the consolidated amount of compensation.  

12.           This order of ours shall be complied with  within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course. 

Announced

                July 15, 2015

 

 

 

( Sarita Garg)      ( K.C.Sharma)  (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                             Member                   Member                President

 

 

BBS/-