Complainant Mrs.Shabnam Prabha through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to credit the amount of Rs.83,621/- and Rs.21,414/- alongwith interest accrued thereon till date in her account. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is having account no.1227010400038028 with the opposite party and operating the said account for her saving and personal use. Thus, she is consumer of the opposite party. The opposite party debited her account on 30.09.2016 for Rs.83,621/- and on 04.12.2016 for Rs.21,413/- without any prior intimation to her. She on getting the knowledge of the said arbitrary debit of her account approached the opposite party and the officials of the opposite party informed that the said amount was debited due to excess interest allowed in her FDR’s. The debit of the interest amount is against the rules and laws and was never ever intimated to her and the FDR’s amount was in the account of the opposite party all the time and was never ever withdrawn or being utilized by her. The opposite party did not give anything in writing about the said debit of her account even on her demand. The officials of the opposite party are very hostile with her. Her account still remained debited with the said amounts till the filing of the present complaint. The aforesaid acts of the opposite party in debiting the amount in her account and not reverting back to her without any reason is an act of deficiency in services, malpractice, unfair trade practice and has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to her. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence the complaint is not maintainable; the F.Ds in dispute has been lying in the Anchal Sharma also, but the complaint has been filed only by Smt.Shabnam Prabha. Thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed in the ground of misjoinder of necessary party; the opposite party has not been served with the legal notice prior to the present complaint, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. Actually, the complainant has accounts bearing No.4703007600017787 and 4703007600017893 with the opposite party and she has got R.D. Flexes which were matured on 28.8.2015 for the amount of Rs.10,88,476/- and on 10.9.2015 for the amount of Rs.5,44,023/- respectively. But the complainant has not turn up on the date fixed with the bank to receive the maturity value of the abovesaid F.R. Flexes. The complainant has also got another account bearing no.1227010400038028 with the opposite party. Opposite party has further submitting that when the complainant came present in the bank, on 12.9.2016 an amount of FD Rs.10,88,476/- has been debited in her account bearing No.1227010400038028 and on the request of the complainant, the F.D. has been reissued on the cost and consequences of the complainant on 14.9.2016 w.e.f. 28.8.2015. Similarly F.D. of Rs.5,44,023/- has also been debited in the account bearing No.4703007600017893 on 12.9.2016. The bank official has conveyed to the complaint that they cannot issue the F.D. w.e.f. 28.8.2015 and 10.9.2015 respectively. But on the request of the complainant they are doing so and in case the interest implied on the F.D.s will be deducted, in that case the bank is not liable. The complainant agreed with the bank officials and give his consent to do this act. As per the circular bank is liable to give saving bank rate of interest on the simple basis and the same interest has been paid on 30.10.2016. A circular in this respect has also been shown to the complainant. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground. On merits, it was stated that preliminary objections may kindly be read to the reply. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with special costs.

4. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed the evidence.

5. Sh. Naresh Gupta, Sr.Manager of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 and Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the opportunity available for the purpose. We find that the instant dispute did prompt at the subsequent reversal of ‘interest’ in the complainant’s account having first allowed the same from back-date at the time of ‘renewal’ of the overdue matured deposits.

7. We find that the complainant has successfully proved the allegations as deposed out in her affidavit (Ex.C1) by producing copy of her SB Pass Book (Ex.C2) duly indicating the two debit-entries of ‘interest’ for Rs.83,621/- & Rs.21,413/- on 30.09.2016 and 04.12.2016, respectively; in lieu of the ‘ante-dated’ renewal of two nos of FDRs (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4) as: i) 470300PU00025844 for Rs.10,88,476/- on 14.09.2016 (w e from 28.08.2015) and ii) 470300PU00025853 for Rs.5,44,023/- also on 14.09.2016 (but we from 10.09.2015) in order to recover the hypothetically paid overdue-interest at that point of time.

8. The opposite party Bank has its preliminary objection (Affidavit Ex.OP1) in non-joinder of the other FDR joint holder Ms. Anchal Sharma as co-complainant but that stands overruled for want of any legal force in it since she is the complainant’s daughter and her interest can be well looked after by the mother complainant. Moreover, the OP Bank has always been at liberty to apply for enjoining her (Ms. Anchal Sharma) to the present proceedings, as per the prescribed statutory procedure. Further, the OP Bank has deposed that the FDRs were issued on ‘pre-date’ i.e., from the date of maturity (Ex.OP2) of previous deposits at the request and consent of the complainant that the Bank shall not be responsible if the so-paid interest gets recovered from her at a later date. However, the OP Bank has failed to produce any cogent evidence to support its contention that gets turned to a bald statement with no evidentiary value. Lastly, the OP Bank has produced its circular (Ex.OP3) disapproving such ‘renewals’ that does not assist them here, in any way, either.

9. We find that the Bank did neither serve any pre-notice of the debit deductions nor any post-debit intimation (with detailed logic/justifications/ calculations etc) of the same and that proves the hue of ‘deficiency in service’ coupled with callous approach in its working. Moreover, this shall certainly defeat the very ‘public-trust’ in ‘public-deposits’ itself, in the Banking system and public will lose its faith in the very banking system. At the best, there has been some wrong interpretations at the OP Bank’s end otherwise ‘principal deposit amounts’ can never be allowed to unceremoniously erode and that too in the sovereign/nationalized Banking System. We cannot but deprecate the same and direct the titled opposite party Bank’s Controlling Office to examine and discontinue arbitrary work-outs at the Branch level that erode the principal deposit amount in the aforesaid fashion. We are of the considered opinion (as duly supported by the trite law) that ‘erosion’ of principal deposit amounts in Banking System happens to be surely opposed to the Public Policy and is thus hit by Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. However, it shall be the OP Bank’s own prerogative as to how to manage/subside such-like-situation(s) but that certainly entitles the present complainant to ‘one’ favorable award under the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.

10. In the light of the all above, we find that the OP Bank has indeed bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant and that lines it up for an adverse award under the applicable statute. We, therefore, partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Bank to reverse the two debit entries (in question) of Rs.83,621/- and Rs.21,413/- along with the applicable interest from the date of respective debits to the complainant besides to pay her Rs.10,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actual payment.

11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President

ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)

January 15, 2018 Member

*MK*