Haryana

StateCommission

A/983/2014

Canara Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Santosh - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Kamboj, Advocate counsel for appellant

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                        First Appeal No.983 of 2014

Date of Institution: 29.10.2014

Date of Decision: 08.03.2017

 

Canara Bank, Main Branch Rohtak, District Rohtak, through its GPA holder Senior Manager Ishwar Singh Shahrawat.

…..Appellant

Versus

Smt. Santosh W/o Late Shri Kartar Singh R/o Village Marodhi Jattan District Rohtak.

                                      …..Respondent

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Shri S.S.Kamboj, Advocate counsel for appellant.

None for the respondent.  

 

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

As per complainant, she deposited Rs.37,000/- on 31.12.1991 in the shape of FDR with opposite party (O.P.) for 36 months. The maturity value was Rs.54,310/-. Due to death of her husband she was perturbed and could not visit O.P. for encashment about FDR.  Seven months before filing of complaint she approached O.P. to release the amount, but, was  asked that original receipt be brought.  That receipt was lost when he was bringing the same and Daily Diary Report (D.D.R.) No.21 was registered at Police Station (P.S.) on 09.04.2010 photo copy of that receipt was produced before O.Ps., but, was not honoured. 

2.      It was alleged by O.P. that as per bank rules record more than nine years old was destroyed. So alleged FDR was not available with it.  For want of original receipt the amount could not be paid.  Objections about maintainability of complaint, limitation, accruing cause of action etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide order dated 19.09.2014, which is as under:-

“In view of the above referred case law which are fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is observed that the complainant is entitle for the maturity amount alongwith interest. As such it  is directed that the opposite party shall pay the maturity amount of F.D.R. i.e. Rs.54310/- alongwith simple interest from the date of maturity of FDR i.e. 31.12.1994 till the date of filing the present complaint and thereafter interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint till its realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant maximum within one month from the date of decision. Complaint is disposed of accordingly.“

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, opposite party-appellant has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that  as per rules of the bank the record is maintained only for eight years. In the present case as per complainant, she obtained FDR on 31.12.1991 but approached in the month of April 2010 for encashment. She could not produce the original receipt, so the amount could not be paid.

7.      This argument is of no avail. O.Ps. have no-where alleged that receipt Ex.P-2 was not issued by it.  It may not be possible for widow lady to remember that he was to get the amount of FDR. Being housewife she might not be aware about rules and regulations of bank about maturity and when amount can be refunded to her.

8.      More-so vide DDR Ex.P-3 it is clear that when she was bringing original receipt the same fell from bag and misplaced. She is an illiterate lady and it cannot be accepted from her to know all the niceties of the system.  It is no-where pleaded or proved by O.Ps. that the amount mentioned in receipt has been paid to anyone.  They may not be having record about receipt, but, it could be checked whether any such payment was made or not. In the absence of payment of this amount, widow lady cannot be deprived of hard earned money of her husband .  As per rules the bank is to maintain the record
 i.e.  FD interest atleast for eight years.  The O.Ps./appellants have miserably failed to show that when the record of this FDR was destroyed. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances it is clear that complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. The findings of learned District forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Resultantly, appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/-  deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

March 08th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.