Balwinder Singh & Sukhjinder Kaur, complainants (here-in-after referred to as 'complainants') have filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Punjab & Sind Bank, Bathinda (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite party')
Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that they are residents of District Bathinda. Complainant No. 2 is the only legal heir of deceased Salinder Singh, duly declared by the Court of DJ (MACT) Bathinda on 07-05-2016.
It is the case of the complainants that father of complainant No.1, husband of complainant No. 2 and father of Salinder Singh i.e. Tarsem Singh died in a Motor Vehicle Accident on 21-8-1997. At the time of his death, his two sons Balwinder Singh and Salinder Singh were minor. As such Sukhjinder Kaur filed Claim Petition with Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda ( here-in-after referred as 'MACT') on account of death of Tarsem Singh for herself and on behalf of minors Balwinder Singh & Salinder Singh, being their natural guardian and mother. MACT File No.118 of 24-02-1998 was decided by MACT Bathinda on 23-08-1999 with the order that the share of the minor claimants i.e. Rs. 50,000/- each of Balwinder Singh & Salinder Singh be deposited in the Bank in the name of minors and shall be paid to them with prior permission of the Tribunal. 'MACT' Bathinda deposited the said amount Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- each in the name of Salinder Singh and Balwinder Singh with the opposite party as the said amount was deposited by JD on 24-12-1999 with MACT Bathinda. The amount was deposited with the opposite party by MACT Bathinda directly in the shape of FDR in the name of Salinder Singh and Balwinder Singh. The FDR was in the custody of the opposite party from day one. It was neither handed over to Sukhjinder Kaur, guardian of the minors nor to MACT, Bathinda (Distt. Nazir). The opposite party even did not provide copy of FDR either to the court (MACT) or to the guardian of minor Claimants and illegally retained the same. The 'MACT' Bathinda also ordered to issue FDR's in the name of minors for initial period of 3 years and renewed from time to time. Balwinder Singh, complainant when became major, He filed an application on 04-08-2015 with MACT Bathinda for release of amount of his FDR of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith accrued interest but the said FDR was not traced. Ultimately, FDR was found with the opposite party as they illegally retained the same and lastly renewed in 2009 up to 12-10-2010. The opposite party illegally used the said money without any interest and without renewing the same. The last amount of Rs.1,95,913/-(FDR) was renewed by the opposite party on 12-10-2009 in the name of Salinder Singh & Balwinder Sigh with the remarks 'Payment to be made on court order' and renewed up to 12-10-2010 only. When Balwinder Singh gave application with MACT, Bathinda for releasing his share then under the orders of MACT Bathinda, the opposite party handed over said FDR dated 12-10-2009 to the court 1st time which they have illegally retained with them and not renewed in time as per orders. The MACT, Bathinda vide order dated 12-12-2015 ordered to the opposite party to release 1/2 share of FDR along with up-to-date interest to Balwinder Singh and remaining 1/2 share of Salinder Singh be redeposited in FDR with the opposite party. The opposite party released the amount of Rs.1,21,991/- to Balwinder Singh i.e.1/2 share of the FDR dated 12-10-2009 (i.e. Rs.1,95,913/- ÷ 2 = 97,956.50 + interest) in his account directly.
It is alleged that the opposite party did not pay the complete and actual full interest to Balwinder Singh on 18-12-2015 as the FDR was in the illegal custody of the opposite party and matured on 12-10-2010 with the maturity amount of Rs. 2,10,507/-. The opposite party did not renew and illegally retained the same without any interest.
It is also alleged that as per FDR, on 12-10-2010 share of Balwinder Singh was 1/2 of Rs.2,10,507/- i.e. Rs.1,05,253.50. The share was released on 18-12-2015 i.e. after 62 months. Only Rs.1,21,991/- were paid without FDR rate of interest by the opposite party.
It is also alleged that the opposite party illegally retained the interest on the balance FDR of share of Salinder Singh and prepared the less amount and issued FDR to the tune of Rs.1,21,991/- on 18-12-2015. Salinder Singh has also died in a motor vehicle accident on 02-01-2013. MACT Bathinda, declared complainant No. 2 as the only legal heir of Salinder Singh on 07-05-2016 as he died bachelor. MACT Bathinda, vide order dated 22-07-2016 ordered the opposite party to release the share of Salinder Singh to Complainant No. 2 being legal heir. Balwinder Singh, complainant also written registered letter on 22-12-2015 to the opposite party and demanded complete and full FDR interest on his share. He also demanded the complete FDR account statement with the rate of interest calculated after 12-10-2010 till payment but to no reply. The complainant also got issued legal notice dated 22-01-2016 to the opposite party for the same but all in vain. The opposite party till date neither provided complete account statement of the FDR nor provided any detail of rate of interest calculated w.e.f. 12-10-2010 to 18-12-2015. The opposite party illegally retained the FDR since 1999 till 2015 and did not renew the FDR after 12-10-2010 and used the FDR amount illegally and earned huge profits by using this amount @ 15% interest to the bank borrowers. Hence, the opposite party is deficient in service.
It is pleaded that complainants are mentally and physically harassed by the opposite party. For this harassment, they have claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-.
It is also alleged that opposite party illegally released the short amount of Rs. 33,475/- as interest of 62 months to both Balwinder Singh and Salinder Singh. In the year 2010 the rate of interest on bank FDR deposit was about 9.50% and as per calculation the interest of Rs.2,10,507/- of 62 months comes Rs.1,42,295/- (i.e. Formula 409.5/400 X 2,10,507/-. The principal amount as on 12.10.2010 = 21 quarters of 62 months whereas as the opposite party released illegally less interest Rs.33,475/- only instead of Rs.1,42,295/- and illegally retained the amount of Rs.1,08,820/-.
It is alleged that opposite party illegally retained the amount of Rs.1,08,820/- of the complainants since 18-12-2015 and did not credit the same in the accounts of the complainants till date. The complainants have also claimed interest on this amount @18% P.A. from 18-12-2015 till payment. To support this contention, the complainants have quoted some case law, the reference of which is not considered necessary at this stage.
By this complaint, the complainants have prayed for directions to the opposite party to pay Rs.1,08,820/- with interest @18% P.A. w.e.f. 18-12-2015 till payment; Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.
Upon notice, the opposite party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite party raised legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable. That the complainants have no locus standi or cause of action to file the complaint. That the complaint has been filed by the complainants on the basis of totally false facts and by concealment of true and material facts. That the complainants are estopped from filing the complaint by their own act and conduct, admissions, omissions and acquiescence. That this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the alleged dispute does not fall within the purview of section 12 of the 'Act'. Intricate and complicated questions of facts and law are involved in this case which require voluminous oral as well as documentary evidence, which is not possible before this Forum. Complaint is liable to be dismissed.
On merits, it is reiterated that complainants have already withdrawn the amount of FDRs lying deposited in the names of Balwinder Singh & Salinder Singh. The opposite party never refused to hand over the original FDRs to the complainants and the same have already been returned back by the opposite party to the complainants. The complainants have already got the amount of FDRs encashed.
It is also unfolded that the amount awarded to the minors Balwinder Singh & Salinder Singh was ordered to be deposited in any nationalized bank initially for a period of three years with further orders that the same should be renewed from time to time, till the minors attain majority.
It is also pleaded that the complainants were fully aware that the original FDRs are in possession of the opposite party. They never refused to hand over the same to the complainants. It is admitted that the opposite party lastly renewed the FDR in year 2009 upto 12-10-2010 as the minors Balwinder Singh & Salinder Singh had attained the age of majority upto 12-10-2010. Since there were no orders of the MACT, Bathinda for the renewal of the FDR after attaining the age of majority by the minors, the same could not be further renewed. If the same was not got encashed by the concerned person/FDR holder in time and was not got renewed under the orders from the competent court of law, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for the same.
It is also pleaded that at the time of passing order for releasing of amount of share of claimant Balwinder Singh, the remaining amount of compensation pertaining to the share of the deceased Shalinder Singh was deposited by the opposite party in the name of MACT, Bathinda vide FDR dated 18-12-2015 for Rs.1,21,990.00 having maturity date 18-12-2016 and maturity value of Rs. 1,31,787/- and deposited the original FDR with the Nazir of the Court against proper receipt. The said FDR was lying deposited with the Nazir of the Tribunal. Nothing remained due against the opposite party.
It is reiterated that opposite party has already made the payment of the FDR in the name of Balwinder Singh as per orders of MACT, Bathinda. The remaining amount deposited in the name of the deceased Salinder Singh has also been released in favour of the complainants alongwith interest thereon upto 12-10-2010. Nothing is outstanding against the opposite party.
It is asserted that the complainants are not entitled to any interest on the amount of FDR w.e.f. 12-10-2010 till the date of payment.
As per opposite party they are not liable to pay interest on FDRs after 12-10-2010 i.e. after attaining the age of majority by the minor. There was no such order by MACT, Bathinda for the renewal of the FDR till the date of withdrawal of the amount of FDR rather the same was to be renewed upto the date of attaining age of majority.
As per opposite party there is no deficiency in services on its part. After controverting all other averments, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint.
Parties were afforded opportunity to produce evidence. In support of their claim, complainants have tendered into evidence their affidavits dated 2-8-2016 (Ex. C-1 & Ex. C-2), photocopy of FDRs (Ex. C-3 & Ex. C-4), photocopy of order (Ex. C-5 to Ex. C-8), another affidavit of complainant Balwinder Singh dated 5-10-2016 (Ex. C-9), certificate copy of FDR release application (Ex. C-10), certified copy of reply to FDR release application (Ex. C-11), certified copy of order (Ex. C-12), photocopy of letter alongwith postal receipt (Ex. C-13), photocopy of legal notice (Ex. C-14 & Ex. C-15) and photocopy of bank pass book (Ex. C-16).
In order to rebut this evidence, opposite party has tendered into evidence affidavit dated 23-12-16 of Sh. Sunil Chabhra (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of reply of respondent No. 2 dated 6-11-2015 (Ex. OP-1/3), photocopy of fixed deposit receipt (Ex. OP-1/4), photocopy of reply of respondent dated 7-3-2016 (Ex. OP-1/5), photocopy of fixed deposit receipt (Ex. OP-1/6), photocopy of reply to the legal notice dated 4-2-2016 and postal receipt (Ex. OP-1/7 & Ex. OP-1/8) and closed the evidence.
Both the parties have submitted written arguments.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the record and written arguments of the parties.
Learned counsel for complainants has reiterated his stand as set up in the complaint and as detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the complainants that material facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that MACT passed an award on 18-9-1999, copy of which is Ex. C-5. The share of minors was ordered to be deposited in any nationalized bank in fixed deposit. It was also ordered that this share was to be deposited initially for a period of three years and renewed from time to time till the minors attain majority. Accordingly, sum of Rs. 50,000/- each was deposited in the name of Salinder Singh and Balwinder Singh on 24-12-1999. The opposite party released the share of Balwinder Singh on 18-12-2015 but the opposite party has paid interest admissible on FDR only upto 12-12-2010. The opposite party was duty bound to renew the FDR from time to time till it was released in favour of complainant Balwinder Singh. Similarly, the share of Salinder Singh was released on 22-7-2016. The share of Salinder Singh was released to the complainant in pursuance of order dated 22-7-2016 but the interest @ admissible on FDR was calculated only upto 12-10-2010. The opposite party retained the amounts till the date of release and utilized the same. Therefore, the complainants were entitled to interest admissible on FDR. The FDRs were admittedly in the custody of the opposite party and opposite party was required to renew the same from time to time till the amount was released. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants have calculated interest @ admissible on FDR to the tune of Rs. 1,42,295/- but the opposite party has paid interest amount of Rs. 33,475/- only. In this way, the opposite party has illegally retained the amount of Rs. 1,08,820/-. The complainants are entitled to further interest on this amount @ 18% p.a. The complainants have suffered mentally, physically and economically due to deficiency caused by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainants are entitled to claim compensation and litigation expenses.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the complainants has cited :-
(i) 2007 (2) R.C.R. (Civil) 783 case titled Alok Shanker Pandey Vs Union of India & Ors.
(ii) 2004 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 176 case titled H N Shankara Shastry Vs. The Asst. Director of Agriculture, Karnataka.
(iii) III (1993) CPJ 7 (SC) case titled Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M K Gupta
(iv) 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 773 case titled Meena Devi and others Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and others
On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has reiterated his stand as taken in written reply and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that admittedly the amount was deposited in the shape of FDR as per order of Hon'ble MACT. It was also to be released after the orders of MACT/ The parties have produced copy of award dated 18-9-1999 (Ex. C-5/OP-1/2. It was clearly mentioned in the award that shares of minors shall be deposited and shall be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and should be renewed from time to time, till the minors attain majority. There was specific order for renewal of FDR only till the minors were to attain majority. It is not disputed that minors were to attain majority on 12-10-2010. As such, the complainants were entitled to interest @ FDR rate till 12-10-2010. There was no further instructions from the complainants or from MACT for further renewal of FDR. As such, the opposite party was to pay further interest only admissible on the saving and not on the FDR. The opposite party has admittedly paid interest as admissible on simple deposit. There was no mandate for automatic renewal of FDR. As per bank instructions dated 6-4-2015 also, in such cases simple interest was payable. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
It is further submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party that even otherwise the complainants were to allege and prove any inefficiency, lack of due care, absence of bona fide, rashness, haste or omission to ascertain the deficiency in rendering the service. A bone fide decision in good faith and a bona fide dispute is not covered within the terms of deficiency in service. From all angles, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainants have admittedly received the interest admissible as per rules and instructions of the banks.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel the opposite party has cited :-
(i) 2017 (4) R.C.R. (Civil) 773 case titled Meena Devi and others Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce and others
(ii) 2000 (1) C.P.R. 72 case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Toyal Dutch Airlines.
We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
Some facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that petition moved by complainants before MACT was accepted vide award dated 18-9-1999. Copy of award (Ex. C-5) also proves this fact. It is also admitted that as per order of MACT share of minors was to be deposited in any Nationalized Bank at Bathinda in Fixed Deposit initially for a period of three years and be renewed from time to time till minors attain majority. It is also not disputed that minors attained majority on 12-10-2010. The FDRs were released subsequently on 18-12-2015. The opposite party has given interest as admissible to the FDR upto 12-10-2010 i.e. date of attaining the majority and thereafter interest as admissible to saving for subsequent date.
The controversy is whether the complainants are entitled to interest as admissible to FDR till the date of payment or till the date of attaining majority. To solve this controversy, the relevant part of award under which the amount was deposited in the shape of FDR will be helpful. For the sake of convenience, the same is extracted as under :-
'It is ordered that the shares of the minors shall be deposited in any nationalized bank situated at Bathinda, and shall be kept in fixed deposit initially for a period of three years and should be renewed from time to time till the minor attain majority.”
In the lateral part of the order, it was also mentioned that on attaining maturity, the amount shall be paid over to them with the prior permission of Tribunal.
From the above part of the order, it is clear that amount was to be deposited in the shape of Fixed Deposit till the minors attain maturity and thereafter amount was to be released after prior permission of Tribunal. It was no where ordered that the amount shall remain deposited in the shape of Fixed Deposit till it was released to the applicant.
The learned counsel for the complainants has tried to support his contention on the basis of observations of the Hon'ble High Court in the case Meena Devi and others (Supra), but a close perusal of this order will reveal that facts of the cited case are clearly distinguishable from the case in hand. In the cited case, Hon'ble High Court on 19-2-1998 in FAO No. 2282/96 has passed following order :-
“After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties, it is directed that ½ amount of compensation awarded by the MACT alongwith interest, shall be paid to the claimants proportionately and the remaining ½ amount with interest shall be deposited with the tribunal. Amount deposited with the tribunal shall be put in FDR in a nationalized bank carrying maximum interest. Disbursement of the amount deposited in FDR shall be considered at the time of final decision of the appeal.”
A perusal of this above order passed by the Hon'ble High Court makes it clear that there was no time limit upto which the amount is to be kept in FDR but in the case in hand, it was specifically ordered that amount in FDR was to be kept till the minors attain majority.
Admittedly, the opposite party has paid simple interest after 12-10-2012. The learned counsel for the opposite party has also relied upon circular dated 6-4-2015, although it is subsequent to the controversy in question but as per this circular also, in the case of renewal of term deposit after 14 days of maturity, the interest for the overdue period is to be paid on simple basis on the amount being renewed 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 & scheme FDRs.
Thus, as per this circular also, for overdue period, simple interest is payable.
Keeping in view the factual and legal position, no deficiency in service can be found on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
