Haryana

Kurukshetra

164/2016

Vijay Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Ratgal - Opp.Party(s)

Sudesh Kumar

22 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Complaint no.164/16.

Date of instt. 9.6.16. 

                                              Date of Decision: 22.2.18.

 

Vijay Kumar son of Shri Niwas son of Jagdish Ram, resident of village Karami, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

                                        ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Punjab National Bank, Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, through its Manager.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, Ratgal, Bhikaji Gama Palace, New Delhi, P.N.B. House.
3. Divisional Manager, P.N.B. Ratgal Chatha Complex, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.
4. Sh. H.N. Singh, C.E.O. P.N.B. Ratgal, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.
5. Shri Madan Lal, Senior Manager, P.N.B. Circle, Head Office Chatha Complex, Kurukshetra, District Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before               Sh. G.C. Garg, President.    

        Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta, Member                                    

 

Present:    Sh. Sudesh Kaushik, Adv. for complainant.  

                Sh. K.K.Kaushik, Adv. for Ops.

 

           

ORDER

                                                                         

 

                   This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vijay Kumar against Punjab National Bank and others, the opposite parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the on 21.3.1996 at 5:30 P.M. the complainant was going on his motor cycle Hero Honda bearing registration No.HR-07-8463 towards Kurukshetra side and when he reached near the house of Satdev Singh on Pipli-Kurukshetra road, he met with an accident with a tractor bearing registration No.HR-05A-1566 which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner and the complainant received multiple and serious injuries upon his body, including head injury and the FIR was got registered against the driver of the tractor. The complainant then filed a claim-petition bearing No.88 of 1995 on 12.10.1995 before the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra which was decided by Shri S.S. Lamba, the then Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra and awarded a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization to the complainant on account of injuries suffered by him and out of which a sum of Rs.75,000/- was given to the father of the complainant in cash because at that time the complainant had lot his speaking power, memory, hearing power and balancing of body due to the injuries received in the accident and the remaining amount of compensation was ordered to be deposited in fixed deposit scheme in any Nationalized Bank till the complainant is declared fit to operate the account. As per terms and conditions of the award dated 5.4.1997, the remaining amount of compensation was deposited under two F.D.Rs i.e. Rs.2,74,910/- was deposited under FDR bearing serial No.180/98, Account No.2941 and RMD No.698403, dated 12.5.1998 and Rs.25,000/- was deposited under FDR bearing No.RZQ-363968, Branch serial No.583/01 and account No.4452-014 dated 12.9.2001, with Punjab National Bank, Ratgal, but the officials of the Ops intentionally and deliberately not mentioned the rate of interest in one FDR No.180/98 dated 12.5.1998 and in another FDR bearing No.RZQ-363968 Dated 12.9.2001 rate of interest was mentioned 8.5% per annum and period of FDR mentioned 36 moths. Feeling aggrieved against the above said award, father of the complainant filed FAR No.1394/97 before the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, Chandigarh and the National Insurance Company also moved before the Hon’ble High Court against the award dated 5.4.1997. During the pendency of the above said FAO, father of the complainant died and after the death the Hon’ble High Court partly accepted the FAO and enhanced the compensation amount of Rs.1,50,000/- over and above the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal along with 12% interest per annum from the filing of the claim petition. Thereafter, the complainant filed an application before the Court of Shri Surya Partap Singh, Learned, M.A.C.T. Kurukshetra for release of the amount of above said FDRs and learned court gave directions to the Ops to release the amount of the FDRs along with interest up to date. After verification of the medical records and quarry put by the Court, vide order dated 1.7.2015 the Hon’ble Tribunal declared the complainant physically and mentally fit to operate his bank account. After taking the certified copy of the order along with his counsel went to Punjab National Bank, Ratgal and handed over the order to Op No.1. On 10.7.2015, OP No.1 asked the complainant to come tomorrow as he has to prepare the calculation of interest due upon the above said FDRs. On the next day, when complainant went to Branch of PNB, Ratgal and met OP No.1, who asked the complainant to meet Ops No.3 to 5. Thereafter, the complainant met Ops No.3 to 5 but they did no pay any heed on the request of complainant and his counsel. Op No.5 Madan Lal used defamatory language towards the complainant and asked to get out from the office. So, the conduct of OP No.5 was very condemnable and not up to the standard of the bank official. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a contempt application before Shri Surya Partap Singh, the then Learned M.A.C.T. Kurukshetra on 1.8.2015 and on receipt of notice of contempt application OP No.1 produced the DD for the amount of Rs.63,571/- and DD for the amount of Rs.8,89,706/- both dated 13.8.2015 which were received by the complainant under protest because the amount given by the OP was not proper. In fact at the time of issuance of FDRs, an amount of Rs.2,74,910/- was deposited under FDR bearing No.180/98 and RDM No.698403 dated 12.5.1998. As per circular of the Bank at the time of issuance of above said FDR on 12.5.1998, the rate of interest was 10% per annum. So, calculating the amount of FDR at the rate of 10%, the total amount comes to Rs.15,10,000/- but the Ops paid only Rs.8,89,706/-. Thus, in this way a sum of Rs.6,20,894/- is still due against the Ops. Similarly, an amount of Rs.25,000/- was deposited under FDR bearing No.RZQ-3639678 branch serial No.593/01 dated 12.9.2001 with PNB Ratgal. At the time of issuance of FDR the rate of interest was 8.5% per annum. Therefore, by calculating the amount of FDR at the rate of 8.5% per annum till realizations, comes to Rs.82,750/- but the Ops paid only Rs.63,571/- and a sum of Rs.19,179/- is still due against the Ops. After deduction of TDS of Rs.1,27,000/- the total amount of Rs.5,12,473/- is still outstanding against Ops No.1 to 5. The calculation of the less interest on FDR amounting to Rs.2,74,910/- comes in to the knowledge of the complainant on18.8.2015 when the Ops produced the DD before the Hon’ble Court and till the release of FDRs, on the FDR amounting to Rs.2,74,910/- was not in the possession of complainant or his father, but the above said FDR was in the custody of Nazir, District Courts, Kurukshetra. So, that is why the interest rate was not mentioned by the Ops on the face of FDR of Rs.2,74,910/- did not come in to the knowledge of the complainant. The negligence of the Ops came in to notice of the complainant on 9.7.2015 when the learned Tribunal gave directions to the Ops vide order dated 7.7.2015 to release the amount of FDRs and then the Nazir of the Court, Kurukshetra handed over the FDR amounting to Rs.2,74,910/- on 9.7.2015. Then, it come in to the knowledge of the complainant that the Ops did not mention the rate of interest at the time of preparation of FDR of Rs.2,74,910/-. So, the present complaint is within the limitation from the date of knowledge i.e. 9.7.2015. The complainant requested the Ops time and again to pay his outstanding amount of Rs.5,12,473/- but the Ops postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. It is the gross negligence on the part of Ops and it amounts to deficiency in service of the Ops. Hence, in such like circumstances, the present complaint was moved by the complainant with the prayer to direct the Ops to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,12,473/-,  to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice, the Ops appeared and contested the complaint by way of filing written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum as such the complainant is not entitled any relief. In fact the Ops have already deposited the amount in the Hon’ble Court of M.A.C.T. Kurukshetra and the same was received by the complainant and now nothing it outstanding against the Ops. The contempt application has been withdrawn by the complainant on deposit of amount by the answering Ops.     Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the contents of the complaint were denied to be wrong. Preliminary objections were reiterated. Prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.            Both the parties have placed on record their respective documents.

5.             We have heard learned counsel parties and have gone through the record carefully.

6.            It is to be noted that in fact, the Ops have already deposited the amount in question in the Court of M.A.C.T. Kurukshetra and the same was received by the complainant. So much so, the contempt application has also been withdrawn by the complainant on deposit of the amount in question. In case, there are some mis calculations before the M.A.C.T. Kurukshetra, the complainant should move before that Court. At least, this Forum has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint.

7.            In view of our above said discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the complaint stands dismissed.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced:

Dated :22.2.2018                                (G.C.Garg)

                                                  President,

                                        District Consumer Disputes

                                       Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra.

 

 

       

(Dr. Jawahar Lal Gupta)

  Member