Haryana

Ambala

CC/102/2023

HEM CHAND JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA. - Opp.Party(s)

ANIL KASHYAP.

21 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	102 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	13.03.2023
Date of decision	:	21.08.2024

Hem Chand Jain, Age 75 years, son of Late Shri Gyan Chand Jain R/o 4437, Jain Mandir Mohalla, Ambala Cantt-133001

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

1. State Bank of India, Nicholson Road, Ambala Cantt Through its Branch Manager
2. Regional Office, Haryana, State Bank of India, SCO 106-108 Sector 17-D, Chandigarh-160018 though its Regional Manager.

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties

Before:         Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Shri Anil Kumar Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Udai Singh Chauhan, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund wrongly deducted money of Rs. 16,878/- along with interest @18% per annum w.e.f. 27.04.2022 till its realization.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/- for causing mental agony and harassment, inconvenience suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay the cost of litigation amounting to Rs. 25,000/-
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had invested Rs. 15,00,000/- in 3 different FDR's of Rs. 5,00,000/- each from his saving bank account number 0030502220581 i.e. FDRs No.No.40156466599,  40156467184 and 39299602653, which were invested on 27.04.2021, 27.04.2021 and 06.05.2021 respectively. The said FDRs were to mature on 28.04.2022, 28.04.2022 and 07.05.2022 respectively. The complainant, on 27.04.2022 at 12.30 P.M. went to branch of OP No.1 for request of transfer the maturity amount of above said FDRs into his saving account on their due dates. During this complainant met one of employee of OP No.1 namely Pooja Verma sitting at counter number 2 and handed over all the above FDs to her. The said Ms. Pooja Verma returned an FDR, and told him that the said FDR would be due on 07.05.2022 and ask him to bring the same on 07.05.2022. She kept the other two FDRs with her and told the complainant to come after lunch as the bank was crowded at that time. The complainant again went to branch of OP No.1 after lunch, then said Pooja Verma got some papers signed by complainant and told him that the maturity amount of the said two FDRs would be transferred to his bank account on the due date i.e. 28.04.2022. However, on 27.04.2022 at around 9.00 PM two messages (SMS) sent by OPs were received on complainant's mobile phone. Both the said messages were about transfer of the above-mentioned FDRs amount of Rs.5,19,633.00 each to complainant's savings account, while as the maturity amount of each FDR was Rs.528072, In this way, an amount of Rs.8,439/- each (Rs. 5,28,072-5,19,633) less were transferred in the account of the complainant, out of the said FDR. In this way a total of Rs. 16,878/- were deducted by the OPs of both FDRs. On the next day i.e., 28.04.2022 the complainant reached the branch of OP No.1 and met Pooja Verma and informed about the same but to no avail.  Matter was also take with the Manager of OP No.1 but to no avail. Under these circumstances, the complainant issued a legal notice Ref No:AK/2023/0121, dated upon the OPs but  OP No.1 has denied the contentions of the complainant by giving equivocal reply dated 10.02.2023, though his counsel without answering any of the issues properly. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version wherein they raised preliminary objections to the effect that this complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is false, frivolous and filed with mala-fide intention and based on wrong information; the complainant has not come with the clean hands and has suppressed the material facts etc. On merits, it has been stated that the complainant walked in the bank and requested the amount of matured FDRs be credited into his savings account as also evident in the FDR documents wherein he has explicitly written that "Please credit the proceeds after TDS in my SBI account number 30502220581" alongside his signature. The complainant expressly omitted stating that he wanted the said amount only after its due date and the bank honored its customer relationship and the request of the complainant and credited the matured amount on the very same day on which the request was made i.e. on 27.04.2022 instead of 28.04.2022. The endorsement on the backside of the FDR documents speaks volume of the request that was made by the complainant which was in fact honored by the OP No. 1 and the complainant thus has no locus standi to file the present complainant since the OP acted on his request. The complainant never informed the OP that he wished to get the matured amount after the due date and the OPs cannot be reasonably expected to read the customer's mind. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure C-W1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Rakesh Kumar, Manager, State Bank of India, Sadar Bazar, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-1 & 2/A, alongwith documents as Annexure OP-1 & OP-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by deducting the amount of 1% i.e. Rs.8,439/- from each Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), totaling Rs.16,878/- from the respective FDRs by encashing the same one day in advance, against the request of the complainant, the OPs are deficient in providing service, negligent and indulged into unfair trade practice. 
7.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that since the complainant vide withdrawal slip, Annexure OP-1, himself requested to encash the amounts against said FDRs on 27.04.2022 i.e. one day in advance, therefore necessary deductions were made therefrom, as per Rules and Regulations.   
8.           The central issue for determination in this case is whether the OPs correctly deducted an amount of 1% i.e. Rs.8,439/- from each Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR), totaling Rs.16,878/- from the respective FDRs. Perusal of FDRs, Annexure C-1 and C-2, reveals that the deposits were to be mature on 28.04.2022. However, the withdrawal slip, identified as Annexure OP-1 and OP-2, indicates that the complainant had withdrawn the amount from the said FDRs one day earlier, on 27.04.2022. It is important to note that the withdrawal of funds before the maturity date typically results in the application of a penalty or reduced interest rate, as stipulated by the terms of the FDRs. In this case, the complainant has not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate his claim that the deduction was inappropriate. Consequently, any oral assertions or claims made by the complainant, without supporting documentation, hold no weight against the OPs. Once the complainant got encashed the abovesaid FDRs one day prior to the maturity date then he cannot later on contest the deduction aforesaid, made for early withdrawal. The terms of the FDRs likely include provisions for such situations, and therefore, the complainant's request for encashment before the maturity date renders his grievance regarding the deduction of interest invalid.
9.           In light of the specific facts and circumstances of this case, it is concluded that the complainant has not met the burden of proving his case. As a result, there is no basis for granting any relief to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no order is made regarding costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.

  Announced:- 21.08.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)		(Neena Sandhu)
Member		President