Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Presiding Member

1.       Sh.Lakhwinder Singh  has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that the complainant is holder of the FDR alongwith his wife Smt.Jasbir Kaur, issued from the Gandhi Bazar, Amritsar branch of Opposite Party  which has now been merged in the present Opposite Party for Rs.50,000/- and said FDR was issued on the basis of 2 in 1 Reinvestment deposit plan, hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act. The money in the FDR in question was never encashed by either complainant or his wife. Earliest date of maturity of the said FDR as endorsed on the instrument was 6.5.1999 and since the same was under ‘reinvestment deposit scheme’ of the bank, the same was to get reinvested automatically till the instructions are to be given by the account holder either to get the same encashed prematurely or to get he status of the same changed. So far complainant neither got the said instrument, nor got its status changed from ‘Reinvestment Plan’  Since the complainant wanted to get the said instrument encashed, thus he visited the bank with the original instrument for the said purpose, but the encashment was refused without any justified reason. Said act of the Opposite Party  of refusing to encash the FDR without giving any reason is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party .  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party  be directed to pay the maturity amount of the FDR in question till date and further pay compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.1 lac for harassment as well as mental agony alongwith financial loss as well and also to pay   cost of litigation to the tune of Rs.22,000/-. Any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled to may also be awarded. 

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, Opposite Party  appeared and contested the complaint by filing  written statement taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the FDR bearing No.016/Q2/07918/01 has been opened with Opposite Party  in the name of Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur, but the complaint has been filed only by Lakhwinder Singh, hence the complaint is to be dismissed on this ground alone. As per the bank record, a saving account bearing no.016/Q2/07918 was held in the name of Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur. The concept of a 2-in-1 re-investment deposit is that it is liked to a saving bank account. As per the nature of a 2-in-1 account wherein a savings account and a deposit account is linked, should there be a shortfall in the savings account to meet any withdrawal, the required sum is uplifted from the linked deposit and credit to the savings account to make good the shortfall. In accordance to the above nature, the amount against the FDR had been uplifted from the FDR account  in question to meet the requirements of the saving account held in the name of complainant and Jasbir Kaur. As per the Opposite Party  bank’s archival report dated 14.10.1998, the FDR amount was reflecting a Nil account balance and subsequently, marked for deletion.   On merits, the Opposite Party  took up the same and similar pleas as taken by them in the preliminary objections.  Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.

3.       In his bid  to prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence  affidavit Ex.C-1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and also produced copies of documents Ex.C2  to Ex.C2  and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the Opposite Party tendered into evidence the affidavit of Sh.Naveen Malhotra, Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP4 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the evidence on record.

6.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments as narrated in the complaint and argued that   the complainant is holder of the FDR alongwith his wife Smt.Jasbir Kaur, issued from the Gandhi Bazar, Amritsar branch of Opposite Party  which has now been merged in the present Opposite Party for Rs.50,000/- and said FDR was issued on the basis of 2 in 1 Reinvestment deposit plan, hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act. The money in the FDR in question was never encashed by either complainant or his wife. Earliest date of maturity of the said FDR as endorsed on the instrument was 6.5.1999 and since the same was under ‘reinvestment deposit scheme’ of the bank, the same was to get reinvested automatically till the instructions are to be given by the account holder either to get the same encashed prematurely or to get he status of the same changed. So far complainant neither got the said instrument, nor got its status changed from ‘Reinvestment Plan’  Since the complainant wanted to get the said instrument encashed, thus he visited the bank with the original instrument for the said purpose, but the encashment was refused without any justified reason. Said act of the Opposite Party  of refusing to encash the FDR without giving any reason is gross deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party  has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant on the ground that as per the bank record, a saving account bearing no.016/Q2/07918 was held in the name of Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur. The concept of a 2-in-1 re-investment deposit is that it is liked to a saving bank account. As per the nature of a 2-in-1 account wherein a savings account and a deposit account is linked, should there be a shortfall in the savings account to meet any withdrawal, the required sum is uplifted from the linked deposit and credit to the savings account to make good the shortfall. In accordance to the above nature, the amount against the FDR had been uplifted from the FDR account  in question to meet the requirements of the saving account held in the name of complainant and Jasbir Kaur. As per the Opposite Party  bank’s archival report dated 14.10.1998, the FDR amount was reflecting a Nil account balance and subsequently, marked for deletion and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8.       It is not the denial of the case that the  complainant is holder of the FDR bearing No.016/Q2/07918/01 (copy of FDR accounts for Ex.C2) alongwith his wife Smt.Jasbir Kaur, issued from the Gandhi Bazar, Amritsar branch of Opposite Party  which has now been merged in the present Opposite Party for Rs.50,000/- and said FDR was issued on the basis of 2 in 1 Reinvestment deposit plan, hence the complainant is consumer as provided under the Act. The only plea taken by the Opposite Party  is that concept of  2-in-1 re-investment deposit is that it is liked to a saving bank account. As per the nature of a 2-in-1 account wherein a savings account and a deposit account is linked, should there be a shortfall in the savings account to meet any withdrawal, the required sum is uplifted from the linked deposit and credit to the savings account to make good the shortfall. In accordance to the above nature, the amount against the FDR had been uplifted from the FDR account  in question to meet the requirements of the saving account held in the name of complainant and Jasbir Kaur. As per the Opposite Party  bank’s archival report dated 14.10.1998, the FDR amount was reflecting a Nil account balance and subsequently, marked for deletion. But in this regard, the Opposite Party  has failed to produce on record any consent or request given by the complainant for uplifting the required amount from the linked deposit and credit to the saving account of the complainant(s) to make good the shortfall. The Opposite Party  has no legal right to make its own rule to transfer the amount of FDR in the saving account of the complainant (s) without the  written consent or without prior permission of the account holder(s). In such a situation, there is a great lapse and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party who allegedly without any written consent and request of the complainant transferred the amount of FDR into the saving account of the complainant. In such a situation, we direct the Opposite Party  to make the payment of FDR alongwith accrued rate of interest from the date of its deposit till its actual realisation. Opposite Party  is also directed to pay Rs.2000/- to the complainant on account of compensation besides Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation.  Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order; failing which, the complainant is at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Forum. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 07.06.2017.