BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.170 of 2019
Date of Instt. 17.05.2019
Date of Decision: 19.10.2021
1. Sh. Sunil Sachdeva S/o Sh. Charanjit Sachdeva, R/o 228, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.
2. Smt. Arvinder Sachdeva w/o Sh. Sunil Sachdeva R/o 228, Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainants
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. Arun Kant 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 complainants are holder of joint FDR account nos. 10012175407 and 10012175394 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 bearing no. TDA/46 362224 account no.01292000447 for Rs.19036.00 with the date of maturity 26.09.2002, which was renewed up to 26.09.2005 with the maturity value of Rs.32465/- and later on renewed up to 26.09.2008 with maturity value Rs.37775/- and new account number was assigned to the said FDR which bears account no. 10012175407 and original FDR bearing no. 10012175407 lying with complainants. The complainants got issued a FDR bearing no. TDA/46 362223, account no.0129200044501 in their joint names for Rs.19036.00. Later on account number of the said FDR was changed by OP no.1 and it was assigned account no.10012175394. The complainants got the said FDR renewed from OP no.1 from 26.04.2002 to 26.04.2005 with maturity amount of Rs.32755/- and thereafter it was renewed from 26.09.2005 for a period of three years with maturity amount of Rs.37188/-. Later on complainants could not get the entry of renewal against the said FDRs. The complainant approached OP no.1 for renewal of said FDR, OP no.1 issued another FDR in lieu of earlier FDR, in the joint names of Sunil Sachdeva and S.K Sachdeva instead of Sunil Sachdeva and Arvinder Kaur. The complainants approached OP no.1 for renewal of FDR lying in joint account no.10012175407 and found that as per the record of the bank, said FDR is lying in the name of some other person and OP no.1 failed to renew the said FDR in name of both the complainants. The complainants also served a legal notice dated 12.03.2019 upon OPs but of no use. Due to act and conduct of OPs, they have filed the present complaint and prayed that OPs be directed to correct their record and issue duly renewed FDRs in joint account no. 10012175407 and 10012175394 with OP no.1 besides Rs.1,00,000/- for mental tension and agony and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
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 is well aware that during the last 18 years there has been migration of manual records of OPs to Electronic 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 operator in the year 2004-2005 in respect of FDR no. 362224 as “Dolly Sachdeva” by the then data operators and FDRs accounts were renewed and had been kept in the same names since 2004 in the same name. It is of late after almost 14 years the complainant has approached the bank and advised it to rectify the said error. The account number alleged to be assigned by complainant to their FDR as no. 10012175394 being verified by OPs by tracing and reconciling its records and form S.K. Sachdeva whose name is alleged to be wrongly added in the said FDR in place of Arvinder Sachdeva. All efforts are being made by OPs to reconcile its records to redress the grievance of the complainant who themselves are responsible for their agony and they did not brought to the knowledge of any error in the records of OPs. 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-7 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&2/12 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 complainant and OPs.
5. Admittedly, the complainants have joint FDR accounts no. 10012175407 and 10012175394 with OP no1. The complainants alleged that they got two FDRs bearing no. TDA/46 36224 A/c No. 01292000447 for Rs.19036 with date of maturity 26.09.2002 which was renewed up to 26.09.2005 with maturity value of Rs.32465/- and later on renewed up to 26.09.2008 with maturity value of Rs.37775/-. The complainant approached OP no.1 for renewal of said FDR , OP no.1 issued another FDR in lieu of earlier FDR in joint names of Sunil Sachdeva and S.K. Sachdeva instead of Sunil Sachdeva and Arvinder Kaur i.e. complainats.
6. On the other hand, OPs refuted the allegations of the complainant leveled against them in his 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 no. 362224 as Dolly Sachdeva and Arvinder Sachdeva and FDR no. 362223 as Sunil Sachdeva and S.K Sachdeva by the then data operators and FDRs accounts were renewed and had been kept in the said names since 2004 in the same name. 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 complainants have joint FDR account with OPs and they got issued two FDRs. The main grouse of the complainant is that the OPs issued FDR in lieu of earlier FDR in the joint name of Sunil Sachdeva and S.K. Sachdeva instead of Sunil Sachdeva and Arvinder Kaur i.e. the complainants. Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are copies of FDRs both are joint in the name of Sunil Sachdeva and Arvinder Sachdeva while Ex.C-3 is copy of FDR which is issued in the name of Sunil Sachdeva and S.K Sachdeva, which is disputed in the case in hand. From perusal of letter dated 08.11.2008 it has revealed that OPs wrote letter to Ms. Dolly Sachdeva c/o Variety International, 6 Basti Nau Jalandhar regarding presentation of Original STDR receipts. The lapse was found on the part of OPs, that is why, they wrote letters to one Dolly Sachdeva. OPs wrote many reminders Ex.OP1&2/5, Ex.OP1&2/6, Ex.OP1&2/7, Ex.OP1&2/8, Ex.OP1&2/9, Ex.OP1&2/10, Ex.OP1&2/11 to Dolly Sachdeva in this regard but no satisfactory reply was given to OPs by her. OPs also admitted in their reminder Ex.OP-1&2/11 that 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 FDRs Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2, it appears that joint FDRs issued in the name of the complainants as Sunil Sachdeva and Smt. Arvinder Sachdeva but Ex.C-3 is copy of FDR issued in the name of Sunil Sachdeva and S.K. Sachdeva which is wrong. In paragraph no.2 of the written reply of OPs, they themselves admitted that it is difficult to pinpoint the exact number of FDRs of complainants, this is proved that OPs irregular on their part. OPs pleaded that their version of OPs is correct then it is bounden duty of OPs to produce the manual record of the FDRs to prove his case, but he has failed to do so. 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 OPs are directed to check their record and rectify the error in the FDRs and issued fresh FDRs in the name of the complainants. 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)
