Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Central District, ISBT Building,  5th Floor,  Kashmere Gate, Delhi.

Complaint Case  No. 46/2017

                                                Versus

Punjab National Bank, 4018, Raguganj

Chawri Bazar, Delhi-110006

Through its Chief Manager                                     ...Opposite Party

Quorum: Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President

              Shri Vyas Muni Rai, Member

              Ms. Shahina, Member (Female)

Vyas Muni Rai, Member

ORDER-

1. The instant complaint has been filed by Sh. Mahavir Prasad Jain (in short the Complainant) against the Punjab National Bank (in short the OP) u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against deficiency in services, negligence and unfair trade practices.

2. In brief, the case of the Complainant is that being consumer within the definition Section 2(d) ii of the Act has filed this complaint stating therein, inter alia, that Sh. Mahavir Prasad Jain and his family created a trust and earmarked their own money to be used for the purchase of the construction of temple at Chatarpur, New Delhi. Since the use of funds by trust was to take place at some later date, therefore, some funds of Sh. Mahavir Mansthan was kept as fixed deposit under the investment scheme of New Bank of India (now merged with Punjab National Bank and running its as branch of OP at Chawri Bazar, Delhi).

3. The five certificates for reinvestment scheme with total maturity value of Rs. 1,12,142.95p detailed as under:-

          It has been further pleaded by the Complainant that these five certificates for reinvestment scheme are with the Complainant and the copy of these are marked and attached as Annexure-C1(colly. with the complaint (page no. 9 to 11 of the complaint). The aforesaid deposits could not be got encashed on its date of maturity i.e. 13.05.1987 as the five certificates were misplaced and in the meantime New Bank of India when the investment was made (as detailed above) was taken over by Punjab National Bank. It is further the case of the Complainant that after the five certificates for investment were traced, in the year 2001, OP were given the five services for reinvestment scheme with request to make payment thereof.

4. The OP did not make the payment having the excuse that the relevant records are not available and efforts were being made to trace them. Subsequently, OP’s Bank complaint section vide COMP. 1546..04 dated 29.01.2005 asked the Complainant to submit some documents as mentioned in the said letter. (copy of the letter dated 29.01.2005 has been attached as Annexure-C2 with the complaint).

5. The Complainant approached the banking ombudsmen (Delhi Region) vide complaint dated 28.02.2006 but banking ombudsmen vide letter dated 27.04.2006 in complaint no. 2368/05-06 in case title Mahavir Prasad Jain vs Punjab National Bank; forwarded to General Manager, Department of Banking Supervision, RBI, Sansand Marg, New Delhi-110001, for necessary action at their end as it does not fall under the purview of Banking Ombudsmen Scheme-2006; a copy of the said letter was also forwarded to the Complainant (copy of the banking ombudsmen letter dated 27.04.2006 has been annexed with the complaint as Annexure-C3).

6. In response to the letter dated 27.04.2006 of the Banking Ombudsmen, Assistant Manager of RBI vide letter dated 25.08.2006 addressed to the Complainant wrote that “we have been advised by the Bank that the account opening forms are not held in respect of the FDRs on the records of Punjab National Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi as old records have been destroyed after the prescribed retention period. You are, therefore, advised to follow the procedure of the Bank and submit the required documents to obtain the payment (letter of RBI dated 25.08.2006 as Annexure-C4 is linked at page no. 14 of the complaint).

7. The Complainant have also repeatedly telling and requesting the OP that it is ready to give indemnity and affidavit for making payment of original deposits receipts which are with the complainant and complainant be not made to submit documents that are not relevant and cannot be provided by the complainant.

8. Subsequent thereof, the complainant sent legal notice dated 31.05.2016 (Annexure-C5/ page no. 15 of the complaint) and contents of the complaint were stated in the legal notice. It was pointed out to the OP that though records of the year 1987 should not have been destroyed well before year 2001, then even if it is admitted the OP is correctly stating about position of non-availability of records; then putting onus of producing old records on complainant is nothing but dishonest ploy of OP to evade lawful liability to complainant.

9.  In response to legal notice dated 31.05.2016, OP wrote letter dated 16.06.2016 annexing the copy of their letter dated 10.07.2015 so that they can seek guidance of higher authorities in the matter, Sh. Khushal Mohal, Adv. of the complainant in response to letter dated 16.06.2016 and 10.07.2015 of OP submitted different documents with the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chawri Bazar, Delhi having enclosure of 11 pages. (letter dated 08.08.2016 is annexures-C7).

10. Complainant having failed to receive the maturity amount of all the five FDRs invested with the OP Bank details of which has been given in para 3 above has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in services and/ or negligence and or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. It has also been alleged that OP is acting in disguised and unlawful manner and OP’s conduct is against equity, fair plea.

11. Complainant has prayed to direct OP to make payment of maturity amount of Rs. 1,12,142.94p of five matured FD with interest at OP fixed deposit rate from date of maturity of certificate for investment scheme till date of actual payment; with award of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for damages, mental pain, agony and hardship and also to pay the cost of litigation of Rs. 20,000/-.

12. The OP has filed written statement supported by affidavit under the signature of Sh. P.C. Sharma, Officer of OP Bank. OP in the reply has taken the stand that complaint is not maintainable on facts and in law and the same is also time barred as such the complaint is liable to be rejected. As required under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC. OP has admitted that five FDRs under reinvestment scheme of New Bank of India has been opted in the name of Sh. Mahabir Mansthan Chatarpur, New Delhi and the documents of the fixed deposit filed by the complainant has also been admitted by the OP, OP has also admitted that initial reinvestment by the complainant was in New Bank of India which has been merged with the Punjab National Bank at Branch, Chawri Bazar. OP has denied that the five FDRs of reinvestment scheme were given to OP ever. Since, however, OP has admitted that photocopy of the FDRs under reference were given to OP which has no sanctity in the eyes of law.

13. It is also the stand of OP that policies pertains to 1985-86 and New Bank of India has been merged in 1993. However, the complainant after merging of the banks firstly approached to the OP in 2002 after the period of 9 years. OP has also submitted in its reply that record pertains to 1985-86, and as per the guidelines of RBI, old records has been destroyed and the same are not traceable. OP has made correspondence every time with the complainant regarding the FDRs and sought the documents required to proceed in the matter. But the required documents has not been furnished with the bank till date. Any deficiency of services and arbitrariness, deficiency of service or negligence have been denied by the OP.

14. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply of OP which is on the same line of the pleading of the complainant except few narration which is in addition to the pleading in complaint in the rejoinder, complainant has stated that OP has not attached any guidelines of RBI according to which the records pertaining to year 1985-86 were destroyed nor evidence has been produced as to when these records were destroyed. Therefore, the stand of OP in making bald statements are not tenable in law. The reply filed by OP is in machenical manner without understanding as to what is stated in the complaint. OP has also failed to place on record as to what is the procedure of the bank that is to be followed as is the stand of OP. The five original certificate for reinvestment scheme are with complainant from which the only presumption that can be drawn is that no payment has been made by the OP. OP has also not filed on record as to what guidance was sought from higher authority of OP after the letter dated 08.08.2016 of the complainant.

15. Both the parties have filed their affidavit for evidence on record of the Commission. Affidavit for evidence of the complaiant is by complainant himself which is the narration of pleadings of the complaint except few new facts stated therein in the affidavit, the complainant has stated that the fixed deposit could not be encashed on 13.05.1987- the date of maturity as the five certificates for reinvestment scheme were misplaced, however, when these certificates of reinvestment was traced; then in the year 2001, OP were given the five certificates with request to make the payment.

          OP has also filed the affidavit of evidene under the signature of Sh. P.C. Sharma, without disclosing his designation in the OP’s Bank which is also on the line of the reply filed by OP except the submission that as per the directions of the Inspection of Audit Division vide circular no. 22/2012 Revised Record Maintenance Policy dated 31.01.2012 through Reserve Bank of India vide Annexure-iii schedule-N, the record older then 10 years should be disposed off.

16.  Both the parties have also filed their written argument. Perusal of the written argument filed by the complainant indicates no new facts and the same is in the line of the pleadings given in the complaint. In the written argument, OP has also repeated the facts/ submissions given in its reply. OP has cited the case title Dalvir Singh vs Punjab National Bank decided by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh, decided on 07.04.2014 which states that:-

          “The Bank cannot release the payment of FDR’s due to non-availability of record as the record is old more than 10 years” and “ a person who sleeps over his rights for such a long time cannot be provided with any relief without establishing the true facts about the documents sought to be encashed.

17. We have gone carefully the submission and rival submissions of the parties, documents on record, affidavits for evidence, pleadings of parties in addition to the written arguments filed by both the parties.

18. From the perusal of the reply filed by OP, the same is the indication that reply is strerotype and prepared in mechanical manner without relying on a single document. OP has also not filed any document/ record with regard to the submissions made in its reply of the circular of RBI relied upon. The circular no. 22/2012 dated 31.01.2012 with regard to Revised Record Maintenance issued by RBI vide Annexure-III, schedule-N as submitted in the affidavit of OP has not been placed on record; otherwise too, the said circular is dated 31.01.2012 and it is admitted facts by the parties that the complainant approached to the OP in the year 2002; if that is so how the circular issued in 2012 is applicable in the case of complainant and that could have been only substantiated by filing the said circular on record of the Commission.

19. We would also like to refer letter dated 29.01.2005 of OP addressed to complainant wherein certain documents have been requested to be submitted by the complainant (Annexure-C2), mere glimpse of the said letter and the documents required by OP therein does not inspire credence as to how those documents are relevant and material for considering the payment of the deposits by the complainant. OP has also stated that only photocopy of the FDR were given to it by the complainant but copy of the same has also not been filed on record. More so, when it is admitted by the OP that old records have been destroyed; then what was the purpose in writing the letters to the complainant for submission of documents mentioned in the letter dated 29.01.2005 for considering the case of the complainant. Otherwise too, if the requirement of the documents on the part of the OP from the complainant is taken into account; then the complainant has also filed on record a letter dated 08.08.2016 through his counsel wherein details of the reference having 11 pages enclosure as mentioned in the said letter has also been addressed to the Chief Manager, PNB Chawri Bazar, Delhi and at the bottom of the said letter complainant has also affixed the postal receipts as acknowledgement. The stand of OP in its reply that policies pertains to 1985-86 when New Bank of India has been merged in the Bank of OP in the year 1993 and complainant approached to the OP in the year 2002 does not inspire credence in the sense that deposits of the citizen is not safe if for one or other reason depositor/ account holders request for making the payment after the gap of some periods.

20. It is the general practice that if the deposits are not being encashed and not disbursed to the rightful claimant then the said deposits are credited in the unclaimed ledger/ account after following the due procedure of the banking systems but OP’s reply/ submissions are also silent on this point.

21. The citation submitted on record by OP as mentioned in para 16 above is not applicable in toto in the instant case. As the facts and circumstances of the cited case is materially distinguishable from the case in hand in the said case of Dalvir Singh vs PNB, the facts in brief were that the complainant, along with his wife was holding a joint saving bank account with the OP and a joint FDR was obtained by the complainant. The joint holder of the FDR, Manjit Kaur (wife of complainant) died on 12.05.2000 and in that case also the complainant Sh. Dalvir Singh approached to the OP bank for release of the payment after the long gap. Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh has also observed “had the FDR amount being left unpaid,  same could have been traced in the outstanding overdue accounts…….”. It was admitted case that Manjit Kaur wife of the complainant died on 12.05.2000; then the amount could have been withdrawn by her being the first joint holder of the FDR in the absence of original FDR, it cannot be said that joint holders of the FDR had not received the payment of the FDR and in the absence of original FDR, the payment cannot be released to the complainant without confirming for the same was not released. But here in the instant case, the facts are different the FDRs are in the single name of the complainant and original of the same are still with the complainant. If that is so, the facts and circumstances of the Dalvir Singh case cited by the OP are different and does not come to its rescue. Since the original FDRs was produced and shown to the OP by the complainant for getting the proceeds but nothing was done by the OP to release the amount of maturity of the FDs which constitute deficiency of service on the part of the OP, therefore, OP fails  and the complainant succeeds.

22. In the view of the aforesaid discussion, the complaint is allowed and complainant is entitled for the payment of maturity proceeds of Rs. 1,12,142.94p of five matured certificates of reinvestment scheme along with the applicable interest on such scheme with the OP bank. Complainant has also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation/ damages for undue mental pain, agony, however, damages of Rs. 20,000/- will fortify both the ends; coupled with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost in lieu of Rs. 20,000/- claimed by the complainant.

23. OP is directed to pay Rs. 1,37,142.94 p [Rs. 1,12,142.94+ Rs. 20,000/-+ Rs. 5,000/-] to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the maturity proceeds of Rs. 1,12,142.94p shall carry the simple interest of 6% pa from the date of filing of the complaint till its realisation and complainant will deposite all the original FDRs in the OP’s Bank forthwith to honour this order of this Commission.

24. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. File be consigned to record room after proper pagination and extra sets be returned to the parties as per rules.

25. Announced on this 13th April of  2023.