BEFORE THE DISTR7ICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 455 of 2015

Date of Institution: 24.7.2015

    Date of Decision:   09.02.2016

Mrs. Satwant Kaur Wd/o S.Surinder Singh, R/o 122, B-Block, Ranjit Avenue, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank, 360, The Mall,Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present:    For the Complainant                  :  Sh.Updip Singh, Advocate

               For the Opposite Party                : Sh.A.K.Sharma,Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Sh.Anoop Sharma, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1.       Present complaint has been filed by Satwant  Kaur under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that she got FDR of Rs. 30000/- vide FDR account No. 016/Q2/02235  with date of deposit 11.5.1996 in “ Two in One Reinvestment Deposit Scheme” in her name jointly with her husband Sh. Surinder Singh under category either or survivor . According to the complainant her husband Surinder Singh expired on 26.12.1999 . The maturity date of the said FDR was 11.5.2001 Complainant has alleged that since the FDR was under reinvestment deposit scheme of the opposite party bank, the same was  to be reinvested automatically till the instrument is got encashed by the holder. Now the complainant wanted to get the said instrument encashed and therefore visited the opposite party bank for that purpose. But the opposite party bank refused to encash the said instrument. The complainant also served legal notice dated 28.2.2015 and 7.4.2015 upon the opposite party but inspite of that the opposite party did not pay the maturity amount of the  FDR to the complainant. Alleging the same to be deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite party to  pay maturity amount of the FDR alongwith interest. Compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- alongwith litigation expenses were also demanded.

2.       On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that as a matter of practice, on the maturity date, the deposit account is closed and proceeds are paid to the customer as per their request. Alternatively, the deposit is renewed for further period based on the request from the customer and a fresh deposit renewal advise is provided to the customer for the same unless there is fresh instructions received from the customer. Moreover, as per the provisions of the Banking Companies Rules 1985, the bank is required to preserve the records relating to a period not less than eight years immediately preceding the current calendar year. The opposite party sent reply dated 3.7.2015 to the legal notice but inspite of that complainant has filed the present complaint. It was submitted that the FDR relates to the year 1995 which is almost 20 years old record which is not available with the opposite party bank and inspite of best efforts made by the officials of the bank, the record pertaining to FDR could not be located. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

3.       Complainant tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5.

4.       Opposite party tendered into evidence  affidavit of Sh.Naveen Malhotra, Branch Manager Ex.OP1 alongwith documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP3.

5.       We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties, arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for the parties.

6        From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant got FDR of Rs. 30000/- vide FDR account No. 016/Q2/02235 Ex.C-2 with date of deposit 11.5.1996 in “ Two in One Reinvestment Deposit Scheme” in her name jointly with her husband Sh. Surinder Singh under category either or survivor . Surinder Singh expired on 26.12.1999 as per certificate Ex.C-3. The maturity date of the said FDR was 11.5.2001 . But as the same was under reinvestment deposit scheme of the opposite party bank, the same was  to be reinvested automatically till the instrument is got encashed by the holder. Now the complainant wanted to get the said instrument encashed and therefore visited the opposite party bank for that purpose. But the opposite party bank refused to encash the said instrument. The complainant also served legal notice dated 28.2.2015 Ex.C-4 and 7.4.2015 Ex.C-5 upon the opposite party but inspite of that the opposite party did not pay the maturity amount of the  FDR to the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

7.       Whereas the case of the opposite party is that as a matter of practice, on the maturity date, the deposit account is closed and proceeds are paid to the customer as per their request. Alternatively, the deposit is renewed for further period based on the request from the customer and a fresh deposit renewal advise is provided to the customer for the same unless there is fresh instructions received from the customer. Moreover, as per the provisions of the Banking Companies Rules 1985, the bank is required to preserve the records relating to a period not less than eight years immediately preceding the current calendar year. The opposite party sent reply dated 3.7.2015 to the legal notice submitted by the complainant with all details. The FDR relates to the year 1995 which is almost 20 years old record which is not available with the opposite party bank and inspite of best efforts made by the officials of the bank, the record pertaining to FDR could not be located. Ld.counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

8.       From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion  that complainant alongwith her husband Surinder Singh got FDR Ex.C-2 of Rs. 30000/- with date of deposit 11.5.1996, date of maturity 11.5.2001 under “two in One Reinvestment Deposit Scheme” as is evident from the said FDR Ex.C-2 with a condition either or survivor. The husband of the complainant namely Surinder Singh expired on 26.12.99 and the complainant has produced his death certificate Ex.C-3 issued by the Municipal Corporation, Amritsar. So the complainant alone was entitled to get the amount of the aforesaid FDR. Further from the FDR itself, it is clear that it is reinvestment deposit that if the depositor does not get the amount of this FDR on maturity encashed, then the same shall be further invested /reinvested in the FDR on the same terms and conditions. So the opposite party was bound to reinvest the said amount in the FDR on maturity on the same terms and conditions as per FDR Ex.C-2 subject to prevalent rate of interest at that time. Now the complainant wants to withdraw the amount of this FDR  but the opposite party did not pay the amount of this FDR alongwith interest accrued thereon upto date despite so many requests made by the complainant and despite service of legal notices Ex.C-4 dated 28.2.2015 and Ex.C-5 dated 7.4.2015. The plea of the opposite party that as per the banking record the opposite party bank has to maintain the record upto 8 years, is not tenable because the present FDR is  under “two in one reinvestment deposit scheme” as such it shall continue till the complainant/depositor get the amount of this FDR encashed . So the opposite party was bound to maintain and keep the record of this FDR intact till the depositor withdraws/got encashed the amount of this FDR. So the opposite party is bound to pay the proceeds of this FDR alongwith upto date interest, to the complainant. But the opposite party did not do so. As such it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.

9.       Resultantly we allow the complaint with costs and the opposite party is directed to pay the maturity amount of this FDR including interest accrued thereon at the rate applicable during this period till date of payment. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses Rs. 2000/- to the complainant. . Copies of the orders 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.

9.02.2016                                                             ( Bhupinder Singh )

President

/R/                                      (Anoop Sharma)               ( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)

     Member                                        Member