DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Parshotam Dass Verma son of late Sh. Kishan Lal Verma r/o House No.1624, PUSHPAC Complex, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 State Bank of India Staff Association having its office at 858, Shivalik Apartment, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh through its Chairman/Secretary Sh. Varinder Thakur

2.                 Varinder Thakur, Chairman/Secretary, State Bank of India Staff Association having its office at 858, Shivalik Apartment, Sector 49-A, Chandigarh

2^nd address for service

Varinder Thakur, working as Cashier with State Bank of India, SCO No.75-76, Sector 31-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Pardep Rana, proxy counsel for Sh. Sunil ‘Kumar, Counsel for the complainant

                        OPs already exparte.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Parshotam Dass Verma has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

“i)        to refund a sum of Rs.15,95,000 as mentioned in para No.9 of the complaint.

ii)                 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- damages for mental tension, sufferings and agony;

iii)              Pay Rs.22,000/- as cost of litigation including cost of issuing legal notice.

and

iv)               Any other consequential relief which the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.”

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he deposited a total sum of Rs.12,50,000/- by way of 12 FDRs (C-1 to C-12) with the opposite parties for the period 2009 to 2011 as detailed in para 3 of the complaint.  According to the complainant, the amount was to be refunded to him alongwith interest as mentioned in the FDRs.  It has been averred that initially the opposite parties paid interest @ 13% on FDRs No.9728 to 9732 and 9734 to 9738 but that too was less by Rs.10,000/-.  However, no amount was paid towards interest against FDR No.9784 of Rs.5,00,000/- and FDR No.9785 of Rs.2,50,000/-. 

                   According to the complainant, he requested the opposite parties several times to pay the maturity amount alongwith interest.  He also served legal notice (C-14 to C-17) but to no avail. 

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           Notice of the complaint was duly served on opposite party No.1.  However, none appeared on its behalf on the date fixed.  Accordingly, it was proceeded against exparte.

4.                           Initially Sh. G.S. Bhullar, Advocate put in appearance on behalf of opposite party No.2 and the case was adjourned for filing
Power of attorney, reply and evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.  However, subsequently none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2. Accordingly, opposite party No.2 was also proceeded against exparte.

5.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the documents on record.

6.                           The complainant has placed on record the copies of the FDRs of different amounts, of different dates and having agreed rate of interest of 12% - 13%.  According to the complainant though he was paid interest on some FDRs but even the same was less by Rs.10,000/-.  It has been contended that the complainant requested the opposite parties a number of times to refund the maturity amount and even served a legal notice on them but still the amount was not paid.  Copy of the legal notice and postal receipts are also on record.  In support of his contentions the complainant has also placed on record his duly sworn affidavit.

7.                           The opposite parties did not appear to controvert the averments of the complainant.  Hence the stand of the complainant goes unrebutted. 

8.                           The opposite parties have illegally retained the hard earned money of the complainant with them even after the maturity period.  They are still enjoying the benefits of the same. Hence the opposite parties are proved to be deficient in service and they are liable to return the deposited amount with agreed rate of interest upto date. 

9.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed as under :-

(i)                to pay the principal amount of the FDRs with agreed rate of interest from the respective dates of deposit till today, after deducting the amount of interest already paid, if any.

(ii)             To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

(iii)           To pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses

10.                       This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amounts at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

11.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

30.11.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER