Haryana

Karnal

182/2011

Shanti Devi W/o Mai Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma

13 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 182 of 2011

                                                          Date of instt.: 31.3.2011

                                                          Date of decision: 19 .11.2015

 

Shanti Devi wife of Mai Chand resident of village Kheri Mann Singh tehsil and District Karnal.

                                                                  ……..Complainant.

                   Vs.

 

Punjab National Bank, Branch at Prem Nagar, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                                                  …..Opposite Party.

 

                     Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma……….Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.J.B.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.S.L.Nirwania  Advocate for the OP.

ORDER:

 

                        The brief facts giving rise to the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, are that complainant was having savings bank account No.01222347 with the Opposite Party ( in short OP) .   The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal issued a voucher in her favour for Rs.3,27,214/- on  18.12.2007. The said voucher was account payee and it was mentioned there in  that 50%amount be paid in cash and  the remaining 50% be deposited in her name in the shape of  Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) for a period of three years. The said voucher was deposited by her in the OP bank on 31.3.2008. It has further been averred that after depositing the voucher in the bank, the complainant did not enquire about debiting 50% amount in her account and preparing FDR of the remaining 50% amount, as  her requirements were limited and she was  assured by the  then Branch Manager that after three years the amount of  FDR would automatically be  transferred  in her account. About one week ago, she visited the office of the OP and requested for extension of the FDR for further period of three years, but she was surprised and shocked to learn  that neither 50%  amount of the said voucher was transferred in her account nor FDR  of the remaining 50% amount was prepared in her favour. Thereafter, she contacted the OP and requested for transferring 50% amount of the voucher alongwith upto date interest in her account and to  issue  fresh FDR of the remaining 50% amount but the OP refused saying that payment voucher was misplaced somewhere. Such acts on the part of the OP amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, which caused her mental agony  apart from financial loss.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Party  who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant.  It has been submitted that the complainant deposited the voucher with the bank.  Since validity of the voucher had expired, the same was given to the complainant to get the same revalidated from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal. As per record of the bank, voucher was not presented after revalidation. Therefore, there was  no deficiency in services on the part of the OP. It has also been pleaded that the complaint is not legally maintainable. The other allegations made in the complaint have been specifically denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, her affidavit EX.CW1 and documents Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW3 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the OP, affidavit of Sh.R.K.Ishpujani, Senior Manager,Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O4 have been tendered.

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

6.                There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that complainant had deposited voucher of Rs.3,27,214/- with the  OP Bank on 8.12.2007 and according to the said voucher 50% amount was  to be paid in cash whereas the remaining 50% was to be deposited in her name in the shape of FDR for a period of three years.  As per version of the OP, the voucher had expired, therefore, the same was returned to the complainant for revalidation but she did not present the same to the OP after revalidation.  On the other hand as per allegations of the complainant, the voucher was never returned by the OP to her for the purpose of revalidation. Thus, the material question which arises for consideration is as to whether the voucher was returned to the complainant for revalidation.

7.                There is no evidence worth the name of the OP which may establish that voucher was ever returned by the OP to the complainant for revalidation. Affidavit of Sh. R.K.Ishpujani, Ex.O1, indicates that at the time of depositing the voucher with the OP, the same was valid.  In the affidavit, it has been submitted that on receipt of the voucher,  as per banking procedure, the voucher was sent for clearing to State Bank of India on 3.4.2008, through regional collection Centre, Karnal, but the same was returned unpaid by the State Bank of India.  The voucher was again presented for clearing on 11.4.2008, but again the same was returned unpaid. In the affidavit he further submitted that voucher was returned to the complainant and she was  advised to get the same revalidated. However, his solitary statement by way of affidavit cannot be taken to be gospel truth and the same is not sufficient to prove that voucher was ever returned to the complainant, because there is no other evidence on record to substantiate  the said plea of the OP. Under such circumstances, we arrive at the conclusion that voucher remained with the OP and the same was never returned to the complainant for the purpose of revalidation.

8.                          The present complaint was filed by the complainant on 31.3.2011. Written statement was filed by the OP on 26.7.2011 wherein it was alleged that the voucher was not  with the bank and the same was returned to the complainant. Thus, the complainant came to know about the factum of non availability of the voucher with the OP bank at the time of filing of the written statement. In such a situation, she could get issued fresh voucher from the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, but no effort was made by her in that direction. Therefore, no negligence can be attributed to the OP in respect of the loss  of interest suffered by the complainant after she came to know the factual position from the written statement of the OP.  The OP had neither returned the voucher to the complainant for revalidation nor gave her any intimation that 50% amount was not credited to her account and 50% amount could not be deposited in the shape of FDR on account of nonpayment of the amount of the voucher by the State Bank of India. In this way, there was negligence on the part of the OP in not informing the complainant about the said factual position.  In fact,  the loss of voucher while in custody of OP, came to the notice of the complainant when written statement was filed by the OP.  Therefore, the complainant is certainly entitled to get the benefit of interest on the amount of voucher from the date of depositing the  same with the OP , till filing of the written statement by the OP because she suffered  loss of interest on account of deficiency in services and negligence on the part of the OP.

9.                          As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OP to pay to the complainant interest on the 50% of the amount of Rs.3,27,214/- at the rate of Fixed Deposit Receipt and on the remaining 50% amount at savings Bank rate prevalent during the relevant period as per guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India, for the period of  8.12.2007 till 26.7.2011( the date of filing of written statement in this case by the OP).  The complainant shall also be entitled to Rs.5500/- on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by her and for the litigation expenses. The OP shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:19.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

       Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.J.B.S.Chauhan Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh.S.L.Nirwania  Advocate for the OP.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:19.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

       Member.