O R D E R

DR. SMARITA MOHANTY, MEMBER

          Challenging the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by learned District Forum, Jajpur in C. C. Case No. 104 of 2015, O.P. has filed the present appeal. Appellant representing the UCO Bank was O.P. whereas respondent was complainant before the District Forum.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant had deposited 19 Fixed Deposits (FDs) in the name of his 3 dependents as first account holders and his name as joint account holder cum ex-staff and senior citizen against each and every FD accounts. It was asserted that preferential additional interest benefit @ 1.25% was provided. But in 13 FDs maturity value was reduced without intimating complainant. He approached Ombudsman who concluded that Branch had paid extra interest in respect of 6 FDs by mistake. After getting clarification from Head Office vide circular dated 3.7.2014, Branch had acted as per instruction contained in the said circular and refused to pay extra interest on 13 fixed deposits as complainant was second holder of the FDs. Further Ombudsman held that complainant had not submitted 15G form for deduction of TDS amounting to Rs.1,430/-. Being dissatisfied with the decision of Ombudsman, complainant filed the present dispute with a prayer to direct the O.P. to pay Rs.31,760/- towards monetary value, Rs.1,430/-  towards wrongful deduction of TDS and Rs.492/- over dues interest along with Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

3.      O.P. contended that as the principal holders were not senior citizens and complainant was second holder. After knowing the same, complainant requested to change his name as principal account holder which was done by the Manager. Later complainant transferred all his FDs to Branch Office Jajpur Road and closed its accounts prematurely on 16.7.15 and lodged complaint against O.P.

4.      After going through the pleadings and materials available on record learned District Forum directed O.P. to pay Rs.51,260/- as maturity value along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation to complainant within one month after receipt of the order, failing which O.P. was held to be liable to pay 12% interest on the awarded amount from the date of filing the present dispute till realisation.

5.      Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order O.P. filed the present appeal on the grounds that learned Forum failed to visualise the situation that complainant being ex manager of the Bank was well aware about the Banking law. But he utilised his position to get financial benefit which he would not have got in normal course.

6.      We heard Mr. C. R. Swain, learned counsel for appellant and respondent in person.

7.      We perused the impugned order as well as District Forum record. We also went through the written notes of submissions filed by the parties.

8.      Learned counsel for appellant argued that as per circular of Head Office, preferential interest is available only it the staff and senior citizen is the first applicant. It was intimated to depositor-respondent over telephone. On confirmation in 13 FDs corrections were made and higher interest value as mentioned earlier was maintained and the other 6 FDs being of higher denomination was not corrected due to non filing of written consent/request by the depositor. Accordingly the said 6 FDs carried the normal rate of interest. The higher interest fixed earlier as such was wrong and being an irregularity was corrected in the system, so that future transaction will remain correct, with due intimation to the depositor.

9.      Respondent argued supporting the impugned order with a prayer for additional amount of Rs.25,000/- as compensation.

10.    On perusal of impugned order it is found that learned District Forum has observed that there was no documentary evidence was produced from the side of Bank to prove that respondent was intimated regarding reduction of interest on FDs. Further it is clear from para 17 of written version filed by appellant-Bank before the District Forum that on February 2015 a mail was sent by Head Office regarding revenue leakage in 75 customers IDs of FDRs due to wrong entry of date of birth of the depositors as first depositors. They were rectified and general rate of interest was charged to the said FDRs.

          In view of the above observations, we are of considered opinion that learned District Forum has rightly passed the order.

          In the result, appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 5.6.2017 passed by learned District Forum, Jajpur in C. C. Case No. 104 of 2015.

          Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.