BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.321 of 2016

Date of Instt. 25.07.2016

Date of Decision: 28.11.2018

Rajinder Kaur W/o Sh. Sucha Singh Johal R/o 682-L, Model Town, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Defence Colony, through its Branch Manager.

2. Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Civil Lines, through its Deputy General Manager.

3. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, Bara Khamba Road, New Delhi.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Naveen Chhabra, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Manmohan Sharma, Adv Counsel for the OPs.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant is a senior citizen and she visited the OP No.1 on 05.10.2016 with the intention to deposit her funds in the shape of FDR, to get a regular interest income. The branch Manager of the OP No.1 advised the complainant for making the investment in a bank's senior citizen scheme, where the amount will kept in the shape of FDR and yield interest @ 9% per annum and the amount of the interest will be credited to her saving funds account quarterly automatically. As advised by the branch incharge of the OP No.1, the complainant deposited Rs.15,00,000/- in the above said scheme on 05.10.2006 with the mandate of auto renewal of deposit on due date and accordingly, the OP No.1 started giving credit of Rs.30,375/- quarterly interest in the saving bank account of the complainant being the interest after deducting the TDS. The OP No.1 continue to give the credit of Rs.30,375/- to the account of the complainant upto the quarter ended on 30.09.2013. That in the month of January, 2015, the complainant visited the OP and got her saving account pass book completed, after going through the details of the credit and debit in the pass book. The complainant observed that the OP No.1 has not credited the quarterly interest of Rs.30,373/- after the quarter ended September, 2013 rather in lump sum amount of Rs.14,26,097/- has been credited to the account on 14.01.2015 and the complainant was shocked and immediately contacted the OP No.1 to know all about the non-credit of the quarter interest and credit of Rs.14,26,097/-. That the OP No.1 informed the complainant that bank stopped paying the quarterly interest after quarter ended September, 2013 and an amount of Rs.14,26,097/- is credited to the account against the deposit of Rs.15,00,000/- deposited by the complainant under the senior citizen deposit scheme, the complainant asked the reason for the same, the OP No.1 instead of giving proper reply or satisfying the complainant treated her rudely and told the complainant that the bank has done as per norms instead of giving proper reply to the complainant. The complainant visiting the OP along with her relative for getting the quarterly interest for Rs.30,375/- w.e.f. December, 2013 along with the different amount of Rs.73,903/- for which she is entitled as per norms. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP never wrote a letter to the complainant regarding the stoppage of payment of interest and deduction of Rs.73,903/- out of Rs.15,00,000/- deposited by the complainant. That ultimately the complainant got served a legal notice dated 10.05.2016 through Regd upon the OPs through her counsel. The OP received the legal notice and replied the same instead of giving the necessary credit to the account. The OPs inspite of oral requests and services of legal notice did not give the credit of the amount due rather detained the said amount illegally and unlawfully and due to above said facts, there is a deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, which gave a cause of action to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to make the payment of Rs.3,77,653/- (Rs.3,03,750/- interest plus Rs.73,903/- deducted out of Rs.15,00,000/-) and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.25,000/- losses suffered by the complainant due to visits to the office of OP No.1 and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed joint reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and further alleged that the present complaint of the complainant is time barred as the cause of action has accrued to the complainant before 01.02.2014, the date on which he got issued the notice and the said notice was duly replied by the OPs on 22.02.2014 and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant after the lapse two years and as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further alleged that the complainant is guilty of concealment of facts and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.15,00,000/- under the senior citizen scheme and it is also admitted that the interest occurred on the said deposited amount was deposited in the saving account of the complainant, but from 05.10.2006 to 05.10.2011 i.e. up to the date of maturity and thereafter, no fresh renewal have been got by the complainant, by filing an application in Form B to the deposit officer within the stipulated period of one year after the maturity period of five years. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.CW1/A along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and then closed the evidence.

4. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Balbir Kumar as Ex.OP/A along with documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/5 and closed the evidence.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

6. Before imparting with the main issue in dispute, we like to take into consideration the objection raised by the OPs in its written reply that the complaint of the complainant is time barred. In order to establish that the complaint of the complainant is time barred, the learned counsel for the OP categorically submitted that the complainant has misguided the Forum by stating in the complaint that complaint is within limitation because the cause of action originally accrued in January, 2015, when the complainant got her pass book completed and came to know the glaring mistake committed by the OP in regard to non giving interest on the deposited amount since 2013 to onward. The plea taken by the complainant is virtually not true and correct because the complainant has intentionally and willfully concealed the material facts from this Forum. It is a necessary for the complainant to disclose in the complaint in regard to previous legal notice served by the complainant, but the copy of said legal notice has been brought on the file by the OP, the same is Ex.OP/2 dated 01.02.2014 and its reply given by the OP is Ex.OP/3 dated 18.02.2014. In the said legal notice, the complainant raised the dispute in regard to non-crediting interest to the account of the complainant from 30.09.2013 and similarly, in the present complaint, the complainant alleged in Para No.3 that the interest was not given to the complainant from 30.09.2013, from the above discussion, it is clear that the dispute as alleged in the present complaint was well within the notice of the complainant on the date of serving legal notice to the OPs i.e. 01.02.2014 or prior to that, it means a cause of action accrued to the complainant on 01.02.2014 or prior to that and complainant has right to file a consumer complaint within two years from the date of accrual of the cause of action, means upto 01.02.2016, but obviously the instant complaint filed on 25.07.2016, means after the expiry of two years and accordingly, we have no alternative except to hold that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and the same is not maintainable, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

7. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

28.11.2018 Member President