Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/16/550

Gurdev Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

14 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 550 of 01.08.2016

Date of Decision            :   14.10.2016

 

Gurdev Singh Pandher, 5-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

Punjab & Sind Bank, Guru Nanak Public School Branch Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

…Opposite party

 

                   (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

MRS.VINOD BALA, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

 

For complainant                      :        In person.

 

PER G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.                Complainant Sh.Gurdev Singh Pandher, filed complaint by claiming that Punjab and Sind Bank adopted double standard with malafide intention by not allowing the interest on FDR’s upto the date of encashment on contractual rate of interest. Complainant claims to have got two FDR’s issued from Punjab & Sind Bank   of Guru Nanak Public School branch under SSP/FDR/F/086271 and SSP/FDR/ 086272 on 28.8.2013 for a period of one year each. Interest payable on these FDR’s was @9.50%. Maturity date of both FDR’s was 29.8.2014. Both FDR’s were got renewed on 10.11.2014 for further one year at the same rate, but after gap of 72 days for one year i.e. until 10.11.2015 at the same rate of interest i.e.9.50%. Due to unavoidable circumstances because of the complainant remaining absent from Ludhiana and due to his tacit understanding that FDR’s will continue at the same rate of interest, belated renewal occurred on 11.7.2016 i.e. after gap of 8 months. Interest rate of gap months given on 4% i.e. less than half of the rate for which, FDR’s issued. OP on one hand using the deposit as fixed and earning regular income on it, but on the other hand, paying rate of interest @4% by treating the same as saving account and as such, it is claimed that OP looting the innocent customers. Letter No.8 dated 17.12.2015 has been issued by OP. However, there is no change of rate of interest i.e. 9.5%. On 13.7.2016, a request in the form of notice was sent to the authorities concerned for making amends to the willful damage/loss of Rs.47,619/- calculated at simple rate of interest, but that request fell on deaf ear and that is why this complaint.

2.                Complainant addressed oral arguments at the admission stage himself by claiming that letter dated 17.12.2015 has been issued for covering up lapse of OP. Rather, it is contended that despite giving of saving bank account number, the amount of FDR’s on maturity not transferred to the said saving bank account. In view of this, it is vehemently contended by the complainant that as OP bank kept the invested amount in FDR’s even after maturity date of 29.8.2014 and 10.11.2015 respectively and as such, he suffered loss of Rs.47,619/-, due to grant of interest @4% by treating the account as saving account. Contractual obligation governed by the terms and conditions stipulated/printed on the FDR’s itself. After going through clause no.2 of FDR printed on FDR’s itself, it is made out that in case, deposit is not renewed, then interest to cease from the due date. That due date in fact is the date of maturity. The original FDR always remains in the hands of purchaser of the FDR. So, complainant after getting these original FDR’s was bound to know that this clause no.2 specifically provides that in case, FDR not renewed by due date i.e. the date of maturity, then interest stipulated will cease to be granted by OP. Despite this clause, OP bank granted interest @4% by treating the amount in deposit as saving account amount and as such, virtually OP performed its contractual obligation of allowing interest upto the date of maturity as agreed, but despite clause of cessation of interest, has allowed interest @4%, which is usually payable on saving account transaction. Complainant himself remained at fault in not getting the FDR’s renewed after maturity and as such, OP bank certainly not liable to pay the interest @9.50% after the date of maturity of the FDR’s. In view of that neither any unfair trade practice adopted by OP and nor there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP.

3.                Terms and conditions provided on FDR’s got govern the contractual obligations and as such, in view of clause 2 printed on FDR’s, OP bank not liable to pay interest @9.50%, after the date of maturity of FDR’s, particularly when the date of maturity/due date specifically mentioned in FDR’s itself. So, complaint being mis-conceived liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself and the same is hereby dismissed with the observations that complainant not allowed to proceed with complaint because deficiency in service or unfair trade practice (as alleged) actually does not exist. Copies of order be supplied to the complainant free of costs as per rules. 

4.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                   (Vinod Bala)                                 (G.K. Dhir)

          Member                                          President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:14.10.2016

Gurpreet Sharma.