Delhi

East Delhi

CC/904/2015

HOSHIYAR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB - Opp.Party(s)

25 Apr 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 904/15

 

Shri Hoshiyar Singh Bhandari

108-B, DDA Flats, Satyam Enclave

Jhilmil, Delhi – 110 095                                                    ….Complainant

Vs.

1. Punjab National Bank

Preet Vihar Branch

F-19, Vikas Marg, Delhi – 110 092

Through its Branch Manager

 

2. Punjab National Bank

Bhikaji Cama Palace

Ring Road, R.K. Puram, Delhi

Through its Managing Director                                        ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 18.12.2015

Judgment Reserved on: 25.04.2017

Judgment Passed on: 01.05.2017

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

 

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Hoshiyar Singh Bhandari, the complainant against Punjab Natiional Bank, Preet Vihar Branch (OP-1) and Punjab National Bank, Bhikaji Cama Palace (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.       Facts in brief are that the complainant is a senior citizen having his saving bank account bearing no. 1399000100735125 with OP-1.  On 04.01.2007, the complainant had deposited Rs. 5,00,000/- with OP-1 in Senior Citizen Scheme bearing account no. 722.  The interest was quarterly credited in the saving bank account of the complainant.  It is stated that at the expiry of 5 years, the complainant was requested to extend the same scheme for a further period of 5 years with same rate of interest, thus, the same deposit was extended for a term of 5 years i.e. from 04.01.2012 to 04.01.2017.  It is stated that on 29.04.2015, the complainant came to know that the interest upto 24.12.2014 only had been credited.  On enquiry, the complainant was told that they have prepared the voucher and the same will be credited in the saving account within 2-3 days. 

On 06.03.2015, complainant again visited to the office of OP-1 and was shocked to know that his account was extended for three years only i.e. upto 04.01.2015.  He showed the pass book in which OP-1 has clearly mentioned that “A/C extended for another 5 years from 04.01.2012”, but all in vein.  On 07.05.2015, complainant wrote a letter to OP-1 stating all the facts.  He received the reply on 12.06.2015 from OP-1 in which they stated “only one extension for 3 years is allowed.

     It is further stated that complainant made a complaint to the Chief Customer Care of OP through email dated 16.05.2015 and 01.06.2015.  However, CCSO office admitted their mistake as “We regret the inconvenience caused to you due to the clerical error”.  Thereafter, the complainant made a complaint to Banking Ombudsman on 29.07.2015, but the same was closed stating that the complaint was not in accordance to the clauses of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme – 2006.  Thus, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to credit the pending interest upto September 2015; to pay Rs. 3,600/- upto 30.11.2015 as interest to be paid by the complainant for loan;             Rs. 4,00,000/- compensation on account of mental tension & agony and Rs. 21,000/- towards litigation expenses.

     Letter from Banking Ombudsman dated 06.10.2015, emails pertaining to complaint with Banking Ombudsman, letter from OP dated 12.05.2015, correspondence between the complainant and OP and copy of the passbook are annexed with the complaint. 

3.       Written statement was filed by OP, after the service of the notice.  It was stated in their WS that as per guidelines after the completion of Senior Citizen Saving Scheme, the beneficiary could take one extension only after 3 years which in the instant case, was from 04.01.2012 to 04.01.2015.  Rest of the contents of the complain were denied.

4.       Complainant filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, where the contents of the complaint were reiterated and that of WS were denied.

5.       Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by both the parties.  The complainant examined himself and stated the contents of the complaint.

          Shri Naveen Katoch, Chief Manager was examined on behalf of OP, who stated the contents of the WS.

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and OP and have perused the material placed on record.  The complainant has placed on record, the copy of the passbook, where “A/C extended for further 5 years from 04.01.2012” has been endorsed which was duly signed and bears stamp of OP-1. 

          On the other hand, OP has placed notification relating to Senior Citizens Saving Scheme Rules, 2004 where it has been clearly mentioned that “the A/C may be extended for a further period of three years………..”. 

          Although OP is bound to operate within the framework of guidelines pertaining to Senior Citizen Saving Scheme Rules, 2004, they cannot be directed to go beyond that, but at the same time the complainant should not be made to suffer because of the clerical error on the part of the employee of OP-1.  Hence, we direct OP-1 to pay   Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for negligence on the part of their employee.  This shall act as a deterrent on the staff of OP-1 who works with a callous attitude towards their customers.      

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                        (SUKHDEV SINGH)

       Member                                                          President