Delhi

North East

CC/144/2021

Smt. Shanti Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 144/21

 

In the matter of:

 

	Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Ragunath Prasad R/o:- 1/2645, Gali No. 3 Loni Road, Ram Nagar Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Complainant
	Versus
	State Bank of India Anaj Mandi Branch Shahdara, Delhi-110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

08.10.2021 07.07.2022 25.07.2022

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. Complainant along with her husband had deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with the Opposite Party on 14.12.1976. The said Fixed Deposit had matured on 14.02.1982. The said Fixed Deposit was further renewed on 14.02.1982. Opposite Party had issued a term deposit receipt Bearing No. G166694. Complainant stated that at the time of maturity of the said Fixed Deposit they could not trace the receipt of term deposit. Complainant along with her husband went to Opposite Party for refund of maturity amount. Each and every time Opposite Party asked to produce the original term deposit receipt. Complainant husband expired on 08.08.2017. Complainant got the term deposit receipt of Fixed Deposit. Complainant informed Opposite Party vide letter dated 24.10.2017 and requested for release the maturity amount along with interest. The said letter was received by the Opposite Party on 27.10.2017. Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party on 12.02.2021 through speed post. Opposite Party replied the said legal notice on 19.03.2021.
2. Complainant has prayed for issuing direction to Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- as deposited by the Complainant and her husband along with interest @ 10% p.a. She has also claimed Rs. 10,00,000/- for damages on account of deficiency of service on account of Opposite Party.
3. Complainant has attached copy of Term Deposit Receipt, copy of death certificate of her husband, copy of  letter dated 24.10.2017, copy of legal notice dated 12.02.2021 and copy of legal notice reply dated 19.03.2021.
4. Notice was sent to Opposite Party but none has turned up despite service. Hence, Opposite Party was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.12.2021.

Ex-parte evidence

5. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the son of the Complainant and have perused the record. The case of the Complainant is that she also with her husband deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the Opposite Party for a period of 14.12.1976 to 14.02.1982. This fixed deposit further renewed for term of six year. Thereafter, the case of the Complainant is that she could not trace out the term deposit receipt after its maturity. The Opposite Party did not repay the term deposit receipt (TDR) amount to the Complainant on the ground that the Complainant was required to produce the original term deposit receipt. Ultimately, the Complainant got the copy of the first term deposit receipt of Rs. 5,000/- and then contacted the Opposite Party to repay her the amount of TDR.
7. The Opposite Party did not contest the complaint despite its service. The Opposite Party had replied the legal notice sent by the Complainant to Opposite Party and the perusal of the same shows that it is an admitted fact that Complainant and her husband had deposited Rs. 5,000/- with the Opposite Party bank for period of 6 years and the said amount have not been repaid to the Complainant. As per the case of the Complainant and the copy of the death certificate filed by the Complainant, her husband expired on 08.08.2017.
8. In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, it is ordered that the Opposite Party shall pay the Complainant the maturity amount which was due on 14.02.1988. It is further ordered that after the said date 14.02.1988 the Opposite Party shall pay interest to the Complainant as per the rule of the bank till its recovery. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 10,00,000/- for damages on account of deficiency of service on account of Opposite Party. However, the Complainant did not need any evidence to show that how she entitled for such a huge amount of damages. Also keeping in view of the fact the Complainant could not file its claim as she was not having TDR with her. Therefore, it is not a fit case to grant any compensation, damages and litigation charges.
9. It is made clear that the Opposite Party shall pay the amount referred above to Complainant only after compliance of due formalities by the Complainant.

 

 

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President