BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ,KAMRUP

                                                                                           C.C.No.88/2015

Present:        I)   Shri A.F.A.Bora, M.Sc.,L.L.B.,A.J.S(Rtd.)-President

                     II)  Smti Archana Deka Lahkar,B.Sc.,L.L.B.   -Member

                     III) Sri Jamatul Islam,B.Sc,Former Dy

                           Director, FCS & CA                                  -Member

1)        Dr.Rupasree Goswami                                          -Complainants

                        W/O -Dr.Dinesh Chandra Goswami

                        Resident of : 24 Namghar Path, Panjabari

                        Guwahati- 781037

                        District: Kamrup(M), Assam

            2)        Dr.Dinesh Chandra Goswami

                        S/o- Late Ananta Nath Goswami

                        Resident of : 24 Namghar Path, Panjabari

                        Guwahati- 781037

                        District: Kamrup(M), Assam

-vs-

            I)         Senior Manager, United Bank of India

                        Consumer Service Department

                        Head Office, 11 Hemanta Basu Sarani

                        Kolkata, 700001

            2)        Branch Manager, United Bank of India

                         Khanapara, Guwahati.                                        - opp.parties

            Appearance              

            Learned advocate Sri D.Sarma, Sri P.Goswami, Sri S.Bora for the complainant  .

Learned advocate  Sri Anil Bharali,  Sri Kailash Barman and Sri Sujal Kr.Sinha     for the opp.party No.1 &2.

                        Date of filing written argument:- 7.12.2018, 7.1.2019     

                        Date of oral argument:                   4.2.21         

                        Date of judgment: -                        3.3.21         

JUDGMENT

1)        This is a complaint  u/s 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The complainant Smti Rupashree Goswami and Dr.Dinesh Ch.Goswami made an allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice caused by the opp.party United Bank of India and its branch manager  Khanapara , Guwahati.

2)        The fact of the case briefly narrating is that complainant  had 3 No.s on accounts in the opp.party bank and kept his savings during his lifetime in the form of non-term deposits with the opp.party No.2 as indicated here-in-below.

3)        It is alleged that upon maturity of the above mentioned term deposits the opp.party No.2 not informed the complainant and had not transferred the money to the saving account to the complainant  and remain silent. The complainant believed that all the three term deposits got renewed automatically and on 6.5.2015 the complainant visited the bank and enquired about the status of the term deposits . Than only came to know about non renewal of the term deposits and he renewed two of the term deposits for a period of one year w.e.f. 6.5.2015. Thereafter complainant requested  opp.party No.2 to provide interest at applicable rate for the intermitted period between the date of maturity i.e.24.12.14 and 6.5.2015 the date of renewal. The opp.party did not pay any heed , but paid interest @4% which was applicable for savings account.

4)        The complainant found that the act of the opp.party No.2 has to be arbitrary as interest has been paid @4% which is the interest for saving account as the money of the complainant was not credited to the account of the complainant. But it was kept in custody of the bank and if it is credited to the saving account of the complainant then he could have utilised the money at his disposal which has not been done by opp.party No.2. In such a situation the complainant is entitled to get interest for the intermitted period on the two of the term deposits at the rate of applicable interest for term deposits. The above act of the opp.party No.2 is termed as arbitrary resulting unfair trade practices and alleged it of deficiency in service.

5)        The complainant being aggrieved send a representation to D.J.M. and Chief Regional Manager, Kolkata on 1.6.2016 by registered post .A letter issued by  Senior Manager , Customer Services of Head office U.B.I. has been received by the complainant informing him that matter has been taken up to meet out the grievances and to resolve the same immediately, but nothing has been heard from U.B.I.and complainant again send a letter on 6.7.2015 and thereafter  manager opp.party of Khanapara branch guwahati visited the residence of the complainant and discuss about  the matter , but the complainant was not satisfied and  he placed the grievances by his letter dtd. 6.7.2015 to the D.G.M. and Chief Regional Manager, but no reply was received .

7)        Thereafter the complainant being aggrieved filed a petition before the Banking Lokpal at R.B.I. Guwahati on 10.8.15. The banking ombudsman took up the issue and hold a conciliation meeting on 9.9.15 where it has been mentioned that complainant had not given the mandate for auto renewal in the account opening form and therefore bank has not given the F.D. rate of interest applicable for term deposit for the broken period. The Ombudsman further observed that complainants are free to approach any other forum  for redressal of their grievances. Therefore the present petition has been filed with the allegation that bank has deprived the complainant by not giving interest at the rate applicable for the term deposit, although the money was in the custody of the bank. Secondly it is alleged that bank did  not transfer the money to the account of the complainant restraining disposal or use of the money by the complainant .

8)        Accordingly the present complaint is filed for the interest at higher rate for the broken period of 133 days as money was custody of the bank and pray for amount of Rs. 49,513/- which has been the difference amount of interest between term deposit rate and rate applicable for saving account. Accordingly , the prayer has been made for financial loss amounting to Rs. 49,513/- and another amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental agony and another amount as compensation to the tune of Rs. 50, 000/-

9)        The opp.party contested the proceeding by filing written statement alleging that the complainant have filled up in the option of the auto renewal column of the account opening form in the account No. -0304109040791 only out of the aforesaid  (3) nos of term deposits. But other two nos. of term deposit account vide No. -0304109042966 and No. 0304109042957 in the option of account  form auto renewal column had not filled up by the complainant. Therefore after   completion of the maturity period  the complainant’s term deposit accounts the opp.party can not provide the interest  at the rate applicable for term deposit for the intermitted period between the date of maturity i.e. 24.12.2014 of two term deposit being no. 0304109042966 and 030419042957 and the date of renewal i.e. 06.05.2015 as the aforesaid  term deposits are not renewed by the complainant . Hence it is not applicable to pay at the rate applicable to term deposit but  paid interest  at the rate of 4% which is applicable for savings account. It is  to be mentioned herein that the complainant had not given  the mandate for auto renewal in the account opening form as such bank has not given the FD rate of interest applicable for the term deposit for the broken period.

10)      The opposite party bank further submits that as per terms and conditions of Bank, it was rule to be kept in the custody of the bank and further paid 4% of interest to the complainant as the complainant  had not given  the mandate for auto renewal in the account opening  form as such the bank has not given the FD rate of interest applicable for term deposit for the broken period. Hence it does not arise to receive interest at a higher rate applicable for term deposits for broken period of 133 days.

11)      The opp.party begs to submit that the complainant has falsely misrepresented the term deposit to extract unfair advantage as the complainant had not given the mandate for auto renewal in the account opening form as such the bank has not given the FD rate of interest applicable for term deposit for the broken period  and has filed  this consumer case against the opp.party no. 1 & 2 as  to merely harass the opp.parties  herein. Hence the instant complainant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

12)      We have carefully scrutinised the record and the evidence of the parties. C.W. 1 is the complainant submitted his evidence in affidavit and exhibited a good number of documents from Ext. 1 to Ext. 8 . We have directly gone through Ext.8 the order of the banking ombudsman wherefrom it reveals that the ombudsman after hearing both the parties and verifying the documents made an observation that the customer (complainant ) had not given mandate for auto renewal under renewal instruction in the account opening forms while operating the said two fixed deposit accounts. It is mentioned that complainant agreed and admitted the same . It is mentioned that therefore the bank could not give the FD rate of   interest on deposits for the broken period as per its laid down policies  in the matter . The ombudsman further closed the case in the term of banking ombudsman scheme. After getting a closure order the complainant approach this forum as it was kept open for the parties for redressal of the grievances.

13)      Now we are of the view that if enhancement  of the rate of interest is not permissible for the reason of having no auto renewal   mandate on the account of the complainant than we have to look into the matter in respect of any negligence for the reason of omission and commission caused by the opp.party. Ext. 1 , Ext. 2  and Ext.3 are  3 receipts for having cumulative term deposit which are not disputed by the  opp.party. The letter issued by the complainant vide Ext. 4 is about the claim made by the complainant for their account No. 0304109042966 and account No. 030419042957 which were matured on the same date i.e. 24.12.14 as a tem deposit . Ext. 5 ,  Ext.6 and Ext.7 are letters and correspondence between the complainant and the opposite party. These documents prove the fact in favour of the complainant that they have made a demand for auto renewal scheme of the  term deposit scheme which were not permissible as per norms of the bank as complainant have not made an preference in the option clause as observed by the ombudsman.

14)      Having such a situation we have gone through the testimony of opw. 1 Sri  Jatin Kr.Hazuri . Senior Manager , United bank of India, Khanapara branch appearing on behalf of the opp.party clearly stated in his evidence that they cannot provide interest at the rate of applicable for the term deposit for the intermitted period between the date of maturity i.e. 24.12.2014 of the two term deposits and date of renewal i.e. 6.5.2015 as the said deposit s were not renewed by the complainant  at the time of maturity. Ext.1 and Ext. 2 (documents by opp.party) are  auto renewal forms  of  account No. 0304109042966 and  0304109042957  and on perusal of the above 2 documents  it is found that  no mandate for auto renewal in the account opening form is there for which bank is not giving FD rate of interest after maturity of both the term deposits.

15)      The evidence of the opw.1 is clear as mentioned in his affidavit that as per terms and condition of the bank, it was the rule to be kept in the custody of the bank and further paid 4% of interest to the complainant as  the complainant had not given the mandate for auto renewal in the account opening form as such  the bank has not given the FD rate of interest  applicable for term deposit for the broken period. Hence it does not arise to receive interest at a higher rate applicable for term depositis for broken period of 133 days and a total amount  of Rs. 49,513/- as calculated by the complainant.

16)      It is apparent from evidence on record that after maturity  of account the bank ought have inform the  complainants about the maturity of the term deposit which have not been done.

17)      Our next observation  is that if the term deposit is completed  than instead of keeping the money in the bank they ought have transferred the maturity  value to the savings account of the complainant ,so that they can utilised  their money during the aforesaid broken period . At the same time it is also duty of the complainant to make enquiry about their money, but the responsibility of the bank is more higher as they are the custodian of the hard earned money of the depositors. Hence , there is a little negligence  for keeping the money for 133 days in their custody without intimation to the complainant on the part of the bank . The offering of 4 % interest on the matured sum for the breaking period is good but as the money was kept without giving option for utilisation have caused some loss to the complainant .

18)      As such complainant to be compensated for deficiency of service on the part of the Bank. In our humble opinion payment of 4% interest is not sufficient and in addition to that opp. party have to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- along with cost of proceeding amounting to Rs.10,000/.

ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed on contest.   Only the payment of 4% interest is not sufficient and in addition to that opp. party have to pay compensation amounting to Rs.20,000/- along with cost of proceeding amounting to Rs.10,000/- .The opp. parties are jointly and severally liable for payment  within 45 days from the  date of judgment, failing which opp. parties   will have to pay interest on the decreetal amount @ 12% from the date of judgment till  realization.

Given under our hand and seal of this commission dtd. 3^rd March, 2021.

(Smt A.D.Lahkar)                           (Md J.Islam)                  ( Shri  A.F.A.Bora)

                 Member                                            Member                           President

DCDRC,Kamrup                        DCDRC,Kamrup                  DCDRC,Kamrup

           Dictated and corrected by me

           (Shri A.F.A Bora)

           President

           DCDRC,Kamrup

          Typed by me

          ( Smt J.Borah) 

          Stenographer