Before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission [Central District] - VIII, 5th Floor Maharana Pratap ISBT Building, Kashmere Gate, Delhi
Complaint Case No.46/11.04.2022
Somnath Bobal s/o Sh. Pishori Lal
R/o M-77, 1st Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018 …Complainant Versus
Punjab & Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Limited
Now known as Unity Small Finance Bank Limited
Karol Bagh Branch, 1247-53, Naiwala, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110005 ...Opposite Party
Date of filing: 11.04.2022
Coram: Date of Order: 16.05.2024
Shri Inder Jeet Singh, President
Ms Rashmi Bansal, Member -Female
ORDER
Inder Jeet Singh, President
1.1. (Introduction to case of parties) –The complainant [being bank account inclusive of FDRs from his banker/OP], has grievances that he got two FDRs from OP, however, the same were not honoured as per request and that too on their maturity dates. There is deficiency of services on the part of OP.
1.2. The OP does not deny the status of complainant as well as issuance of two FDRs but OP denies allegations of deficiency of services, since the said FDRs were dealt as per amalgamation scheme with Unity Small Finance Bank Limited, the deposit insurance and credit Guarantee Corporation (“DICGS”) issued a set of “Guidelines for Settlement of Claims under Provisions of Section 18A of the DICGS (Amendment) Act, 2021-Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Op Bank Ltd.” of 16.02.2021, especially clause no. 11 of the guidelines, which reads as “please ensure that, while preparing the claim list, set-off against dues, if any, is done against the balance outstanding as on cut-off date.” Accordingly, the amount of FDR were transferred to the account of complainant and then appropriately apportioned to the loan account, credit card etc.
2.1. (Case of complainant) –On 08.08.2019 the complainant took FDR for Rs. 2 lakh for 31 months at interest of 8.5%pa being senior citizen having maturity date of 08.03.2022 with amount of Rs. 2,48,551/- vide FDR account no. 607208300000072 [to identify this FDR at glance, hereinafter it is referred as the “Ist FDR”]. On 31.03.2017 the complainant took another FDR for Rs. 1,50,000/- for 60 months at interest of 7.25%pa having maturity date of 31.03.2022 with maturity amount of Rs. 2,14,831/- vide FDR account no. 607205600000004 [also to identify this FDR at glance, it will be referred as the “2nd FDR”].
2.2. On 08.07.2020 the complainant requested OP for cancellation of Ist FDR but subsequently (since till 11.02.2022 the FDR was not cancelled despite request), the complainant requested OP not to cancel the FDR, as complainant changed his mind at that time. On 11.02.2022 the complainant visited OP bank with request to cancel FDR and transfer the matured amount on that day into his account but Branch Manager refused it either for crediting the amount or to release the amount; the Branch Manager stated that the bank had sunk but complainant is just bothering of his FDRs (बैंक डूब गया है आपको अपनी एफडीआर की पड़ी है). The complainant requested for acknowledgement of his letter dated 11.02.2022 but it was refused to accept; it is unfair trade practice of OP towards the complainant/customer besides deficiency of services. The complainant is entitled for release of amount of Ist FDR matured on 08.03.2022 and amount of 2nd FDR matured on 31.03.2022. The OP bank has refused to credit it into the account of complainant. The complainant also served notice dated 07.03.2022 to the OP but there was no reply. That is why the complaint for release of maturity amount of the Ist FDR and of the 2nd FDR with interest by way of pay order in his name, besides compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in lieu of hardship and suffering and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-
2.3 The complaint is accompanied with copies of – Ist FDR, 2nd FDR, letters dated 08.07.2020, 11.02.2020 and legal notice dated 07.03.2022.
3.1 (Case of OP)- The OP gives its profile that it was incorporated under the Companies Act as well as refers the DICGC Amendment Act 2021 that the guidelines framed were followed by the OP to deal with the accounts, loan, FDRs of the complainant. The complaint has been opposed on all counts, it is bad under law as complainant is not a consumer and there is no consumer dispute to be determined by the present Commission. The substance of objections, taken on behalf of OP, have already been mentioned in paragraph 1.2 above.
3.2. The OP pleads that vide Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Limited (Amalgamation with Unity Small Finance Bank Limited) Scheme, 2022 dated 25.01.2022, the Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Limited has been amalgamated with Unity Small Finance Bank Limited wherein the identity of Punjab and Maharashtra Co-operative Bank Limited has been dissolved, thus the transactions related to Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Limited will be dealt by Unity Small Finance Bank Limited as per the prescribed Scheme, which is also on www.theunitybank.com.
3.3 The complainant had availed vehicle loan vide account no. 607300500000001 for an amount of Rs. 11 lakhs but due to non-payment, the account was declared NPA on 31.03.2020.
The complainant was having the Ist FDR and the 2nd FDR, however, the complainant approached the OP with letter dated 08.07.2020 to transfer the funds of Ist FDR into his loan account. Subsequently on 11.02.2022 the complainant came with another letter not to cancel the Ist FDR, however, it was replied by the OP on 15.02.2022 that the request of complainant cannot be acceded to because of the guidelines and scheme of amalgamation, especially its clause 11 [already referred and reproduced in paragraph 1.2 above].
3.4 Thus as per prescribed guidelines, the OP transferred amount of Rs. 2,44,702/- in respect of Ist FDR to the saving bank account of complainant and further amount was transferred to the loan account of the complainant. Similarly, another amount of Rs. 1,98,587/- in respect of 2nd FDR was also transferred to the saving bank account of the complainant and an amount of Rs. 93,044.14p were transferred to his credit card and balance amount of Rs. 1,05,034.88p was transferred to the vehicle loan account of the complainant. Therefore, there is no substance in the complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. Moreover, after adjusting the amount of fixed deposits against the liabilities, there is outstanding amount of Rs. 4,39,700.03p as on 26.05.2022.
4. (Replication of complainant) –The complainant filed detailed replication, having component of reaffirming the complaint as correct as well as to deny the allegations of the written statement. Briefly, the OP is not having any right or power to cancel the fixed deposit as there were tax benefit accrue payable on the maturity and huge amount of Rs. 19,000/- has been deducted without any reason and justification. The OP has not provided complete statement of account deliberately but provided statement of account from 23.09.2019 to 24.01.2022. The OP has not provided complete information to the complainant despite requests and visits and also exact detail was also not filed. The complainant also refers facts of some other transaction pertaining to his sister, however, the same is not relevant for the purposes of present complaint because of facts in issue of this complaint.
5. (Evidence of parties)- At the stage of evidence, the parties were given opportunity to lead evidence, however, despite various opportunities, the complainant failed to lead evidence and consequently complainant’s evidence was closed on 13.02.2023 after final opportunity. However, the OP led evidence by filing affidavit of Ms. Rameet Kaur Sethi, AR of OP and the affidavit was filed as a precautionary measure, since there was no evidence led on behalf of complainant.
6.1 (Final hearing)- The parties were also given opportunity to file the written arguments, the complainant and the OP filed their respective written arguments, which are replica of case of the parties.
6.2. Sh. Mohit Monga, Advocate with complainant made the oral submissions and on the other side Sh. Rahul Lal Akhariya, Advocate with Sh. Silender Singh, Branch Manager of OP presented their oral submission.
6.3 During the phase of argument, a situation was emerging that detail of amount is mentioned in the case of parties but a few dates are not mentioned as to when the amount was credited to the account of complainant, of the Ist FDR and the 2nd FDR vis-à-vis as to when certain amounts were debited in his account. To meet that situation and supplement them with the arguments, the OP filed statement of complainant's saving account no. 607100100000305 w.e.f. 01.01.2022 to 20.12.2023 in the name of complainant Somnath Bobal and another statement of account no. 607300500000001 in respect of vehicle loan.
7.1 (Findings) - The contention of both the sides are considered, keeping in view the material on record as well as the provisions of law. It is apparent from the plain reading of pleading that the status of complainant as saving account holder and also having FDR besides vehicle loan account, are not denied by the OP. The account number, and the FDR numbers are also not disputed by the parties. However, the OP has raised some law points, which are opposed by the complainant, first of all the same will be determined.
7.2.1. According to OP, the complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 as he did not purchase any goods nor availed any services, that is why he does not qualify the definition of consumer. But on the other side, the complainant opposes the request of OP by raising a question if the OP is not rendering services, then what kind of business activities is being carried by the OP? The complainant is a consumer under the Act 2019.
7.2.2. The answer of rival contention is in the record itself and in the definition of services u/s 2 (42) of the Act 2019. The relationship of the complainant and of the OP is of a customer and a Banker. The bank renders services in various forms, which also includes maintaining of bank account. It is also admitted case of OP that it had extended loan facility to the complainant in respect of vehicle or otherwise. The banking services are covered within the definition of ‘services’ and the complainant was availing services of bank by way of holding an account and fixed deposit receipts. Therefore, it is held that complainant is a consumer and he is covered under the Act. It is not out of context to mention, the OP being a Banking Institution is expected not to raise this kind of objections, knowing well the objection are hollow, to consume the valuable time of this Commission to determine it by putting energy and time.
7.3.1. The OP in continuation of first limbs of argument also contends that there is no consumer disputes to be covered under the Act 2019. But on the other side, there is plain answer since the complainant is a consumer and the dispute to be determined is a consumer dispute.
7.3.2 It is already held in paragraph-7.2.2 that the complainant is a consumer. The consumer dispute is defined u/s 2(8) of the Act 2019 that when complainant makes allegations in the complaint against the opposite side, who denies allegations, then it is a consumer dispute. On the face of pleading of the parties, as already detailed in the case of parties, this is consumer dispute. Therefore, the complaint is covered under the Act 2019 and the present DCDR Central has jurisdiction to decide the consumer dispute.
8.1 So far other issues are concerned, by taking into account stock of all the record, the following conclusions are drawn:-
(i) There are admitted facts in respect of account and FDR of the complainant being maintained with the OP bank.
(ii) The admitted fact need not to be proved is a settled principle of law, which confines to the dates and maturity date of account and FDR account.
(iii) The OP has proved notification dated 25.01.2022 by the Ministry of Finance and also guidelines for settlement of claim vide letter dated 16.09.2021.
(iv) The complainant has made certain allegations against the OP in the complaint as well as in the replication that his request for cancellation of FDR vis-à-vis its withdrawal before cancellation was not entertained nor the amount was transferred to the account of complainant. On the other side, OP has substantiated detail of amount of the Ist FDR and of the 2nd FDR transferred to the credit of account of complainant and subsequently certain amounts were debit in his account to apportion towards the outstanding liability either of vehicle loan account and credit card.
The complainant has not proved those allegations for want of leading evidence but the OP led evidence and established the facts mentioned in the written statement. To say, the complainant failed to cloth the allegations with evidence but the OP established its stand by leading positive evidence.
(v) The amount of Ist FDR and the 2nd FDR was transferred to the account of complainant by making credit entries as well as it is also showing that the total amount of FDR matured on 18.02.2022 was transferred to the loan account by making debit entry. The other amount were also transferred to the credit card and to the loan account, which were also stated in the written statement and evidence. The evidence led on behalf of complainant is reconciling with the statements of account produced and filed during the course of oral submission.
It was also objected that the statement of account has not been proved during evidence, there is no second opinion to it, however, the statement of accounts are not projecting the new facts since the material facts and figures were already detailed in the pleading and evidence.
(vi). The aforementioned conclusions and discussion clearly show that the amount of Ist FDR and the amount of 2nd FDR was transferred into the credit account of complainant and the amount of FDR stand submerged into the credit of account of complainant. Thus, the complainant has already been released the amount of the Ist FDR and the 2nd FDR in his bank account. (However, that amount has been apportioned by the OP bank towards liability of complainant by virtue of approved scheme and guidelines besides other banking norms] .
8.2. So, the conclusions in paragraph 8.1 above manifest that complainant failed to prove the complaint. The complaint fails. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
9. Announced on this 16th May, 2024 [वैशाख 26, साका 1946]. Copy of this Order be sent/provided forthwith to the parties free of cost as per rules for compliances, besides to upload on the website of this Commission.
[Rashmi Bansal]
Member (Female)
[Inder Jeet Singh]
President
[ijs58]
