Complainant Varinder Kumar 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 parties to release his FDRs amount alongwith interest @ 7.25% from the date of deposit of amount and further interest @ 9.25% from the date of enhanced interest till realization plus Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.1,00,000/- as damages for illegal harassment, physical and mental agony, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he has deposited the amount with the opposite party in the form of three fixed deposits i.e. amounting to (i) Rs.30,000/- on 25.07.2002 jointly with his father Darshan Lal son of Gian Chand vide account no.12807 (SBV 892912), (ii) Rs.25,000/- dated 25.7.2002 jointly with his mother Raksha Rani wife of Darshan Lal vide Account No.12805 (892910) and (iii) Rs.30,000/- dated 25.7.2002 jointly with Monika his wife with 7.5% p.a. availing interest at time and further of any charges by the RBI which was sooner enhanced to 9.25% PA and still prevailing for which he alongwith joint account holders are entitled from the opposite party. Hence he is consumer of the opposite party. His father and mother had died now. He approached the opposite party so many times personally for the renewal of the abovesaid FDRs but the official of the opposite party avoid it on one or the other pretext then leaving the hopes, he regularly requested many times to the opposite party for the release of abovesaid three FDRs with interest, but again the officials of the opposite party did not release the FDRs and interest till date to him and also delayed the matter on the one or the other pretext. A legal notice dated 18.9.2014 to the opposite party through his counsel Sh.Gurpreet Singh Bedi, Adv.Batala was issued. The opposite party had issued fake and bogus receipts to him and told that the said FDRs have already been released and withdrawn vide receipts No.20020834, 20020835 and 20020836. He requested the opposite party that the original FDRs are in his custody and he has never withdrawn the FDRs. He had also applied for the information in regard to the FDRs to the opposite party vide three applications dated 12.08.2014 each, then the opposite party issued a letter vide Ref:COK:1:RTI:26/14 dated 10.09.2014 in the form of reply with remarks that the FDRs have not yet been paid and are still lying with Branch Office, Qadian. He approached the opposite party for the release the FDRs with interest but the opposite party refused to release the interest on the said FDRs. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their written reply through their counsel admitting therein that the complainant had deposited the amount in the form of 3 Joint FDRs with opposite party no.1. The rate of interest payable on the amount of FDRs was @ 7.25% per annum but not 7.50% pr annum as alleged by the complainant. The complainant was entitled only to the maturity amount of the FDRs as agreed mentioned in the FDRs themselves and he had no concern with the enhanced rate of interest as per the RBI directions. The complainant never approached the opposite party for renewal of the said FDRs. Also the complainant never asked the opposite party for release of the amount of 3 FDRs. The opposite parties did not issue fake and bogus receipts to the complainant and never told the complainant that the FDRs have already been released. The complainant has produced 3 statements of account pertaining to the captioned FDR Account which showed that the running FDR accounts of the party had been closed and amount of the FDRs till maturity had been transferred to Current Account ODFD. Actually, the complainant deposited with OP no.1 amount in the shape of 3 FDRs jointly with his Father, Mother and Wife. Date of issuance of FDR was 25.7.2002. These were for 12 months, so their maturity date was 25.07.2003. The complainant never approached the bank on 25.7.2003 or afterwards for renewal or release of the amount of the FDRs. As per Circulars of the Bank, the Banks are not to auto renew the Term Deposit Accounts without having obtained Customer consent in writing. It has been further submitted that the complainant has never approached the opposite party Bank for Renewal or Release the amount of the FDRs. The opposite party is ready to renew or release the amount of the FDRs if the complainant asks for the same. The complainant is entitled to get interest for the overdue period at the simple rate of interest of 4% p.a. w.e.f. 22.08.2008 alongwith the maturity proceeds of the matured term deposits. All other averments made in the complaint have been denied and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C20 and closed the evidence.
5. Sh.Prem Chand, Sr.Manager of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, 2/1, alongwith documents Ex.OP1,2/2 to Ex.OP-1,2/8 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for some documents ignored to be produced by the litigants. We observe that the prime dispute pertains to the ‘payment & rate of interest’ on the overdue fixed deposits (having matured on 25.07.2003) but still held by the OP Bank as not claimed by the complainant/ holder(s). We find that it has been duly printed on the reverse of each of the 3 nos. of Fixed Deposit Receipts (Ex.C2, C3 & C4) that ‘The Deposit Receipt duly discharged should be surrendered at the time of payment or renewal of deposit. To prevent loss of interest, the receipt intended for renewal should be sent on due date’. Here, the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that ‘renewal’ and/or ‘auto-renewal’ was ever desired (and/ or related instructions ever conveyed) by him to the OP bank and in the absence of that he shall not be entitled to the usual fixed deposit rates on his overdue fixed term deposits. On the other hand, the OP Bank has duly produced its H.O. Instruction Circulars Ex.OP1,2/2, OP1,2/3 & OP1,2/4 on the subject of ‘payment of interest’ on the overdue fixed term deposits that allow payment of interest @ savings bank rate (simple interest basis) on the overdue term deposits but with effect from 22.08.2008, only. The OP bank has also offered ‘payment’ of these overdue FDRs as per the above ‘terms’ vide its (Ex.OP1,2/5) letter of 18.04.2015. However, we find that the OP Bank while transferring the proceeds of these overdue FDRs (having matured on 25.07.2003) to its ODFD (overdue fixed deposits) A/c on 13.01.2004 (as is evident from Ex.C7, C8 & C9) did not intimate the complainant. Moreover, the fact remains that the deposit funds stayed back with the OP Bank (all this time) for a profitable employment in the banking business and thus interest at the savings bank rate could be gracefully allowed by the Banks as a gesture of good will & gracious customer service.
7. In the light of the all above, we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint shall be best disposed of through issuance of a directive to the OP Bank to pay the maturity proceeds of all the 3 nos. of overdue FDRs (upon presentation in original/fully discharged) to the complainant along with interest at the savings bank rate from the date of transfer i.e., 13.01.2004 till actually paid. The parties here shall themselves bear own costs.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
September 15, 2015 Member
*MK*
