Haryana

Kurukshetra

160/2017

Suriender Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBOP - Opp.Party(s)

M.S.malik

15 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                        Complaint Case No.160 of 2017.

                                        Date of institution: 07.08.2017.

                                        Date of decision:15.03.2019

 

 

Surinder Kumar son of Siri Kant resident of Flat No.137, Milano Tower, Mahagun Moderne, Sector-78, GH-02, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida(UP).

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

 

State bank of Patiala, Railway Road, Thanesar, now State Bank of India, Railway Road, Thanesar, District Kurukshetra through its Manager.

 

….Respondent.

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present:     Sh.M.S.Malik, Advocate for complainant.

                Sh.K.K.Kaushik, Advocate for opposite party.

               

(ORDER)

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Surinder Kumar against the State Bank of India, the opposite party.

2.             Brief facts of the present complaint are that he was the employee of State Government of Haryana in the year 1984, who had voluntarily retired on 31.10.2013 against the date of superannuation on 30.4.2014. He further alleged that he had opened account No.6-L.F.7/1 Under Employees Welfare Scheme with opposite party for a period of three years and deposited a sum of Rs.3600/- from 4.7.1984 to 12.6.1987 @ Rs.100/- per month for 36 months.  The matured amount was to be remained deposited with the opposite party till the date of superannuation of him till 30.4.2014 and the entire proceeds of the deposited amount including interest there on was to be paid to him on the date of his superannuation.  He further alleged that after the date of superannuation, he approached the opposite party to pay the entire proceeds of the deposited amount by him with the opposite party.  He moved various applications to opposite party in this regard and sought requisite information from opposite party regarding the due amount, payable to him.  The opposite party lingered on the matter of returning the proceeds of the deposited amount on the ground that due to computerization of the bank record, the relevant documents of the his account are not traceable.  He also moved another application dated 7.4.2016 to the Governor RBI, Chandigarh Branch, Sector-17, Chandigarh.  RBI registered the complaint and his complaint number is 201617014005840 on dated 19^th September, 2016 and put the same before the Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi for taking appropriate action.  Banking Ombudsman, New Delhi issued notice to the opposite party and after receiving the reply thereof, the Banking Ombudsman directed him to approach the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances as decision on the complaint requires consideration of documentary and oral evidence for which Banking Ombudsman is not the appropriate Forum.  He further also alleged that he presented the original pass book of his account containing the details of the deposited amount before the opposite party for making the payment but opposite party showed its helplessness in the absence of original record.  It is further alleged that non- payment of the entire proceeds of the deposited amount by the opposite party to him on the date of superannuation amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to pay the matured amount with the interest of 18% per annum and further to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.  Hence, this complaint.    

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Forum and filed their written statement raising preliminary objections that the complainant has no locus-standi to file and maintain the present complaint; that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form; that the complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint; that the this Forum has no jurisdiction; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts; that the complainant is time barred. On merit OPs have also denied all the contents of the complaint and plead that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part and the complaint is without merit and same be dismissed with heavy costs.

 4.            Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit as Ex.CW-1/A and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 in evidence and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. 

5.             On the other hand, the Op tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and document Ex.R-1 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

6.             We have heard the ld. Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully and minutely.

7.             Ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that complainant was the employee of Haryana Government and voluntarily retired on 31.10.2013 against the date of superannuation on 30.4.2014.  He opened account under the employee welfare scheme for the period of three years and deposited of Rs.100/- per month to the Ops.  Copy of passbook is Mark-A.  Ld. Counsel for the complainant again contended that after the retirement he send many applications to the Op to return the money, but OP has not been returned the money, which was mentioned in the passbook with interest.  He also made an application Governor RBI on 7.4.2016, which was transferred to the bank ombudsman, New Delhi.  Order of Ombudsman is Ex.C-9, in which ombudsman directed the complainant to file a complaint to the appropriate Forum for redressal of his grievances.  Order of banking ombudsman is Ex.C-9. So, the complaint may please be allowed. 

8.             Ld. Counsel for OP contended that there is no record of any such account of the complainant.  He totally denied the allegations of the complainant and also contended that no such policy is mentioned in the complaint.  So, the complaint of the complainant may please be dismissed. 

9.             In rebuttal ld. Counsel for the complainant contended that original passbook of the complainant is Mark-A.  In which para 10 clearly show “Every depositor will be provided with a pass book and no installment will ordinarily be accepted in the account and no repayment will ordinarily be made from the account without the production of the Pass-Book.  But the bank may in their discretion, waive the formality at the written request of the depositor.”   Moreover affidavit of OP Ex.RW-1/A Bhaskar Kumar, Manager, Branch office, Thanesar do not denied any deposition of money in bank of OP, but only says  the account details is not traceable.  It means the money was deposited in the bank of OP. 

10.            We have seen the documents on the file minutely, which clearly shows that complainant had deposited the amount to the OP and the money deposited by the complainant is with the OP.  The question is whether there is policy of employee welfare scheme or not.  We have seen the order of Ombudsman, New Delhi.  In which clearly shows that there is policy of employee welfare scheme as mentioned in Ex.C-9 and Ex.R-1, which is same document.  Second page of this document clearly mention “As per modified scheme of the bank issued vide HO circular No.P&SB/61 dated 31.08/1982, the matured amount of RD account was to be placed in Special Term Deposits for initially 3 years (subsequently revised to 5 years).  The renewal of STDR was coincided with the superannuation date of the official so that the proceeds were paid to the beneficiary at the day of retirement.”  This document proves that this is the employee welfare scheme. So, in our view the complainant was deposited the money in the bank and there is also a scheme of welfare of employee, which shows in Ex.C-9 and Ex.R-1.    

11.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint of complainant and direct the OP is directed to pay the amount mentioned in passbook Mark-A with interest as per mention in the circular No.P&SB/61 dated 31.08.1982 to the complainant within 60 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization. We also direct the ops to further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:15.03.2019.                                           (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                     President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.