BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.171 of 2019
Date of Instt. 17.05.2019
Date of Decision: 19.10.2021
Smt. Arvinder Sachdeva w/o Sh. Sunil Sachdeva r/o 228, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, Sports and Surgical Complex, Kapurthala Road, Jalandhar through its Branch Manager.
2. State Bank of India, Regional Business Office -4, Civil Lines, Jalandhar through its Regional Manager.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Arvind Sharda, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. A. K. Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.
Order
Kuljit Singh(President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, against OPs on the averments that she is account holder of FDR Account No.10012175510 with OP No.1. OP No.2 is Regional Business Office of OP no.1 and its controller and as such OP No.2 has been made party to complaint being controlling office. The complainant got issued FDR of Rs.19036/- bearing FDR No. TDA/46/362235 having account no. 01292000460 dated 29.03.2001 which was due on 20.09.2002. The said FDR was later on assigned account no.10012175510. The said FDR was renewed from 26.09.2002 to 26.09.2005 with its maturity value of Rs.32,465/-. The said FDR was further renewed from 26.09.2005 to 26.09.2008 with its maturity value of Rs.38,454/-. The said FDR is automatically renewed from time to time in the books accounts of the OP in the name of Arvinder Sachdeva. The complainant approached OP No.1 in the first week of July 2018 for the entry of renewal of FDR lying in the account no.10012175510 and found that as per record of the bank, said FDR lying in the name of some other person. The complainant wrote letter dated 04.07.2018 to OP No.1 for the correct of record in respect of FDR in question in respect of FDR account no. 10012175510 but till today nothing has been done in this regard. The complainant is the owner of aforesaid FDR in account no. 10012175510 with OP no.1 and bank has no right whatsoever to alter the record so as to incorporate any other name against the said FDR instead of the complainant. She also served a legal notice upon OPs dated 12.03.2019 but of no use. Due to act and conduct of OPs, she had filed the present complaint and prayed that the OPs be directed to correct their record and issued duly renewed FDR A/c no. 10012175510 with OP No.1 besides Rs.1 lack for mental harassment and Rs.15,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their joint written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant had dragged the OPs into unnecessary and uncalled. On merits, it was averred that the complainant almost 18 years has brought to the knowledge of OPs about his concern alleging wrong name of account holder on FDR for more than 14 years. Firstly, manual records have been migrated to Bank Master Software in the year 2002 when impugned FDR was taken on record with the name of Mandeep Sachdeva and thereafter it continued as such till date even while migrating it to core banking system. The OPs are facing difficult to find out the correct position of FDR and make necessary changes if so required to redress their grievances. Rest of the averments of the complainant was denied by OPs and they prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The complainant has tendered in evidence copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Manjit Singh Branch Manager as Ex.OP1&2/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP1&2/1 to Ex.OP1&2/11 and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record very carefully as well as written arguments filed by OPs.
5. Admittedly, the complainant has FDR account no. 10012175510 and 10012175394 with OP no1. The complainants alleged that she got two FDR bearing no. TDA/46 362235 A/c No. 01292000460 for Rs.19036 with date of maturity 20.09.2002 which was renewed up to 26.09.2005 with maturity value of Rs.32465/- . The said FDR was further renewed from 26.09.2005 to 26.09.2008 with its maturity value of Rs.38454/-. The complainant approached OP no.1 in the first week of July 2018 for the entry of renewal of FDR lying in account no. 10012175510 and found that as per record of the bank, the said FDR lying in the name of some other person, but OPs failed to do so.
6. On the other hand, OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant leveled against them in her complaint. They pleaded that complainant well aware that during the last 18 years there has been migration of manual records of OPs to Electronics record in the year 2002 and 2004. The details of impugned FDRs while being migrated from manual records to Bank Masters Software in the year 2002 has recorded by the data operation in the year 2004 -2005 in respect of FDR in question. They denied any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part.
7. From perusal of entire record, it has been transpired that the complainant has FDR account with OPs and they got issued FDR name of other person. The main grouse of the complainant is that the OPs issued FDR in lieu of name of the complainant to some other person. Ex.C-1 is photocopy of FDR which is got issued in the name of the Arvinder Sachdeva complainant which is issued on 29.03.2001 and matured on 26.09.2002 for amount of Rs.19036/-. The complainant also wrote letter dated 04.07.2018 to OPs regarding rectification in FDR but no satisfactory reply was given to her. From perusal of letter dated 08.11.2018, it has revealed that OPs wrote letter to Sh. Mandeep Sachdeva c/o Variety International, 6 Basti Nau Jalandhar regarding presentation of Original STDR receipts. The lapse found on the part of OPs, that is why, they wrote letter to one Mandeep Sachdeva. OPs wrote many reminders Ex.OP1&2/7, Ex.OP1&2/8, Ex.OP1&2/9, and Ex.OP1&2/10 but no satisfactory reply was given to OPs by her. OPs also admitted in their reminder Ex.OP-1&2/9 that no they did not provide them satisfactory reply. OPs also admitted in their written reply that some error occurred in their record. OPs have failed to prove that they issued correct FDRs in the name of the complainants. From perusal of copies of FDR Ex.C-1 , it appears that FDR issued in the name of the complainant but got issued FDR in the name of other person, which is wrong.. If OPs pleaded that their version is correct then it is bounden duty of OPs to produce the manual record of the FDRs to prove his case. The complainant availed the service of OPs as such she is consumer and OPs are service provider, as such, as service provider it is bounded duty of OPs to provide the proper and better services to its customer but this was not done by OPs. The deficiency in service and unfair trade practice was attributed on the part of OPs.
8. Form perusal of above facts and circumstances of the case and plethora of judgments, we are of the considered opinion, we allow the complaint of the complainant and OP is directed to check their record and rectify the error in the FDR and issued fresh FDR in the name of the complainant. The complainants also entitled Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses for mental harassment and Rs.2000/- which is to be deposited in Legal Aid Fund of this Commission.
9. The compliance of the order be made within 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.
10. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Commission
19th of October 2021
Kuljit Singh
(President)
Jyotsna
(Member)
Jaswant Singh Dhillon
(Member)
