DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C. 239 of 20.8.2007<br /> Decided on : 20.3.2008<br /> <br /> 1.Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Parshotam Dass<br /> 2.Nand Lal S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Parshotam Dass<br /> 3.Bharwas Kumar S/o Sh. Jagdish Rai S/o Sh. Parshotam Dass, all residents of village Phulewala, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.<br /> ...... Complainants<br /> <br /> Versus.<br /> <br /> 1.State Bank of Patiala, Near Mall Godam, Rampura Phul Branch, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.State Bank of Patiala, Near Dr. K.K. Nohria Clinic, Zonal Office, Bathinda through its Zonal Manager.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:-<br /> <br /> Sh.Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainants : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. S.M. Goyal, counsel for opposite party No.1<br /> Opposite party No. 2 exparte <br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:-<br /> 1. Complainant No. 1 is the father of complainants No. 2 & 3. They are joint in mess and business. They have dealings with opposite party No. 1 for the last about 12 years. Complainant No. 1 had purchased three Fixed Deposit Receipts (Here-in-after referred to as the FDRs) from opposite party No. 1 on 22.11.1995, 7.1.1995 and 9.7.1995. Complainant Nand Lal had purchased three FDRs on 7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 & 22.11.1995. Similarly, Bharwas Kumar had purchased three FDRs on 6/7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 and 22.11.1995. After the dates of their maturity, all the complainants had approached opposite party No. 1 for receiving the payments. At the asking of opposite party No.1, original FDRs were produced before it official. They were kept by that official of opposite party No. 1 with further direction to receive the payment subsequently. Since then, they are visiting opposite party No. 1 for receiving the payments alongwith interest, but matter is being postponed on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, they got served legal notice dated 4.11.2006 upon the opposite parties. Even reminder dated 1.12.2006 was issued, but to no effect. It is alleged by them that due to the adamant attitude of the opposite parties, they have undergone mental tension, agony and loss of physical health. Their allegation is that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. In these circumstances, this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to release them the payments of the aforesaid FDRs immediately; pay them Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental tension, agony and loss of physical health and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.<br /> 2. Opposite party No. 1 filed its version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; complainants have no locus-standi and cause of action to file it; it is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of causes of action; complaint is vague and ambiguous, it is hopelessly barred by time; it reveals that it has been filed merely to make fishing and baseless inquiries; complainants have not given particulars of alleged FDRs or account numbers; They are not consumers and they have not come with clean hands. It is further added by it (opposite party No.1) that it did not refuse to make payment of any of its customers against legal, valid and appropriate FDRs; complainants never approached it nor presented the FDRs to claim the amount; Sh. Tarsem Lal Garg who is the relative of the complainants and is the Manager of the bank was also allowed to go through the record of the bank in any manner to remove doubts or misunderstandings; complaint is false and frivolous. On merits, it denies that complainants had purchased the alleged FDRs. Infact, they had earlier complained to the higher authorities with some other facts regarding the purchase of FDR in 1984 with date of maturity as 7.7.1989 and interest amount of Rs. 10,901.55. As per complainants FDRs were lost as they had remained out of the locker. Now they are pleading otherwise. As per record available with the bank, originally one STDR for Rs. 1,45,000/- was purchased by Jagdish Rai complainant on 22.11.1994. It had matured on 22.11.1995. A sum of Rs. 15,051/- had become due thereon on account of interest. Total sum due became Rs. 1,60,051/- on 23.11.1995. Three FDRs Nos. 429819, 429821 and 429820 for Rs. 60,000/-, Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 45,000/- were purchased in the names of Jagdish Rai, Nand Lal and Bharwas Kumar complainants respectively. Each was for a period of 27 months. They were maturable on 22.2.1998. Remaining sum of Rs. 10,051/- was credited in the Saving A/c No. 3109 of Jagdish Rai. On 22.2.1998, interest of FDR of Jagdish Rai was Rs.20,016/- and it was credited in his Saving A/c No. 3109. FDR of Rs. 60,000/- was renewed for another 36 months i.e. upto 22.2.2001. On 22.2.2001, this amount of Sh. Jagdish Rai became Rs. 85,545.65. It was again renewed for a further period of 36 months on 3.3.2001 w.e.f 22.2.2001 maturable on 22.2.2004 for Rs. 1,15,049.39. Thereafter it was again renewed for 24 months and date of maturity was 22.2.2006 for Rs. 1,29,611/-. Again FDR of this amount was further renewed by Computer System for his welfare for 36 months w.e.f. 23.2.2006 to 23.2.2009 maturable for Rs 1,65,591/- in his name. He has not produced this FDR which is either with him or may be under some charge. For getting payment of this amount, he will have to produce the original or to follow the other process required concerning the loss of the instrument as per guidelines, norms and instructions of the bank. So far as the amount of FDR No. 429820 of Rs. 45,000/- in the name of complainant Bharwas Kumar is concerned, the same became due on 23.2.1998 i.e. the date of maturity. Amount payable was Rs. 60,012/-. Out of it, Rs. 34,653/- were got credited by him in his account No. 152/24, whereas remaining amount of Rs. 25,449/- was got credited by him in loan account No. 173/24. Thus nothing remains due and payable out of his this FDR. As regards FDR No. 429821 of Rs. 45,000/- in the name of complainant Nand Lal is concerned, the date of maturity was 23.2.1998. Rs. 60,012/- were payable. Out of it, Rs. 40,317/- were got credited by him in his account No. 153/24, whereas the remaining amount of Rs. 19,695/- was credited in his account. Thus nothing remains due and payable out of the amount of this FDR. Complainants are making allegations merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures and without any record or proof. It denies that original FDRs were produced before it for payments. They have not mentioned any particulars of them i.e date, month or year of presentation or deposit or delivery. Name of the person to whom they were delivered has not been disclosed. This is on account of the fact that they were never produced. Payments of the amounts of the FDRs of Nand Lal and Bharwas Kumar have already been made on 23.2.1998. Hence, the question of presenting the FDRs by them, does not arise. So far as the FDR in the name of Jagdish Rai is concerned, he is alleging on the one hand that FDR has been lost as it was left out of the locker. On the other hand, it is being alleged that FDR was presented for payment. There are no FDRs dated 22.11.1995, 7.1.1995 & 9.7.1995 in the name of Jagdish Rai and dated 7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 and 22.11.1995 in the name of Nand Lal and dated 6/7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 and 22.11.1995 in the name of Bharwas Kumar. It does not deny specifically the receipt of the legal notice and letters dated 4.11.2006 and 1.12.2006 respectively. Remaining averments in the complaint are denied.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 was served through the Peon of this Forum. Despite service, no-one came present on its behalf. Accordingly, it has been proceeded against exparte. <br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, they have tendered into evidence affidavits (Ex.C.1 & Ex.C.43) of Jagdish Rai complainant, photocopies of demand loan ledger (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4 & Ex.C.53), photocopies of account statements (Ex.C.5 to Ex.C.7, Ex. C.38 to Ex.C.42 & Ex.C.58 to Ex.C.61), photocopies of receipts (Ex.C.9, Ex.C.17, Ex.C.19, Ex.C.21, Ex.C.24 & Ex.C.27), photocopies of FDRs ( Ex.C.10, Ex.C.18, Ex.C.20, Ex.C.22, Ex.C.25, Ex.C.28, Ex.C.44 to Ex.C.48, Ex.C.50 to Ex.C.52 & Ex.C.56), photocopies of vouchers (Ex. Ex.C.8, C.11 to Ex.C16, Ex.C.23, Ex.C.26, Ex.C.29, Ex.C.30 & Ex.C.49, photocopies of term deposit ledgers (Ex.C.31 to Ex.C.37 & Ex.C.57), photocopies of cheques (Ex.C.54 & Ex.C.55), photocopy of legal notice (Ex.C.62), photocopy of reminder dated 1.12.2006 (Ex.C.63) & postal receipt (Ex.C.64). <br /> 5. On behalf of opposite party No.1, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. Narinder Singh, Branch Manager and photocopies of letters dated 29.6.2005 & 4.12.2006 (Ex.R.2 & Ex.R.3). <br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainants and opposite party No. 1. Apart from this, we have perused the record.<br /> 7. Learned counsel for the complainants argued that from the evidence on the record it is clear that some amount of complainant No. 1 is payable by the opposite parties and as such, version of the complainants stands established. Opposite parties have not produced the relevant record concerning the FDRs in question. In these circumstances, deficiency in service on their part is proved. <br /> 8. Mr. Goyal learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 countered these arguments by submitting that there is no evidence on the record to hold deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.<br /> 9. We have considered the rival arguments. It is well settled that onus to prove the allegations in the complaint is upon the complainants. They are required to prove them by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. Deficiency in service or unfair trade practice cannot be held on the basis of surmises and inferences. At the very outset, it is worth mentioning that the averments in the complaint are vague. Complainants have not disclosed the numbers and the dates of nine FDRs. Their dates of maturity are not known. In other words, complete particulars of the FDRs i.e. dates, amounts and numbers are missing. In such a situation, the relief prayed for to the effect that direction be given to the opposite parties to release the amount of the FDRs cannot at all be accorded. Affidavit Ex.C.1 of complainant Jagdish Kumar stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Narinder Singh, Branch Manager of the opposite party No.1-bank in which he has reiterated the version in the reply of the complaint. In the reply, opposite party No. 1 has stated in so many words that there is no FDR dated 22.11.1995, 7.1.1995 and 9.7.1995 in the name of Jagdish Kumar, dated 7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 and 22.11.1995 in the name of Nand Lal and dated 6/7.1.1995, 10.7.1995 & 22.11.1995 in the name of Bharwas Kumar.<br /> 10. As referred to above, complainants have not given the dates of maturity of the FDRs mentioned in para No. 2 of the complaint. As per plea of the complainants, all the nine FDR are of the year of 1995. It was for the complainants to establish that they have knocked the door of this Forum within two years from the date the cause of action accrued to them. An application was moved by Jagdish Rai complainant to the opposite party-bank on 29.6.2005 mentioning in it that he is hankering after the officials of the bank for the last five years, but his grievances are not being redressed. If contents of this application are considered as they are, the cause of action first accrued to the complainants somewhere in the year 2000. When matter is so considered, this complaint filed by the complainants on 20.8.2007 becomes hopelessly barred by time.<br /> 11. Simple case of the complainants is that nine FDRs mentioned in para No. 2 of the complaint were purchased by them and on maturity they were presented to opposite party No. 1 and that they were kept with the direction to receive the payments later-on. They were visiting opposite party No. 1 to receive the payments of the FDRs with interest, but to no effect. Name of the official/officer to whom alleged FDRs were delivered for receiving the payments is not known. Story of the complainants in the complaint does not tally with the contents of the application moved by Jagdish Rai on 29.6.2005, copy of which is Ex.R.2. According to its contents, one FDR was got issued in the year 1984 which had matured on 7.7.1989. A sum of Rs. 10,901.55 was taken as interest and the remaining amount of the FDR was again invested by him in the shape of FDR. After that FDR had matured, he had got issued two FDRs in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- each in the names of his sons and one FDR of RS. 60,000/- in his name. A sum of Rs. 6,428.32 of interest was also deposited by him. These FDRs remained out of the bank locker and inquiries were made by him from the Clerk. Twice the FDRs were kept by Sh. Manjit Singh being disputed under the directions of Assistant General Manager. He had contacted Sh. Jit Singh, Manager where Sh. Manjit Singh Clerk had told Sh. Jit Singh Manager that FDR was of the amount of Rs. 60,000/-. Thereafter, due to connivance of Sh. Manjit Singh and Sh. Jit Singh, he was told that he has no FDR in the bank.<br /> 12. Opposite party No.1 has set up its version in the reply of the complaint. According to it, FDR was first purchased in the year 1994 for Rs. 1,45,000/-. Its (opposite party No.1's) this version is established from the documents Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4, Ex.C.9, Ex.C.10, Ex.C.12, Ex.C.18 to Ex.C.22, Ex.C.24 to Ex.C.26, Ex.C.35 & Ex.C.38 to Ex.C.42. These documents have been proved by the complainants themselves. A perusal of the record reveals that some amount of Sh. Jagdish Rai complainant is still with opposite party No.1, but that amount is not of the FDRs alleged by the complainants in para no. 2 of the complaint. Similarly, the evidence reveals that there were FDRs No. 429820 & 429821 of Rs. 45,000/- each in the names of Bharwas Kumar and Nand Lal respectively and their maturity date was 22.2.98. Maturity amount was got credited by them in their accounts and as such, nothing remained due and payable out of these FDRs. If some other amount concerning some other FDR is payable to Jagdish Rai complainant, he may proceed to recover the amount if so advised and permitted by law. On its basis, it is difficult to hold deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, particularly when it has not been proved that the amount pertains to the FDRs mentioned in para no. 2 of the complaint. <br /> 13. Complainants have also placed on record documents Ex.C.44 to Ex.C.61. They do not advance the cause of the complainants at all as they have no connection with the FDRs mentioned in para No. 2 of the complaint. Complaint is not regarding the FDR, copy of which is Ex.C.44. FDRs, copies of which are Ex.C.44, Ex.C.46 to Ex.C.48, Ex.C.51 and Ex.C.57 are not in dispute. Ex.R.3 is the copy of the reply of the notice sent by the opposite party No.1 to the counsel for the complainants. A perusal of the same reveals that opposite party No.1 is coming with clean hands. Through this reply of the notice, it has made it clear that complainant Jagdish Rai and his sons have been maintaining deposit accounts and they had TDR/STDR accounts which were renewed from time to time. It has further been made clear that it has no entry of the FDRs mentioned by the complainants in the notice, copy of which is Ex.C.62. It gave the offer to the complainants to depute their person for the satisfaction of complainant Jagdish Rai.<br /> 14. No other point was urged before us at the time of arguments.<br /> 15. In the premises written above, crux of the matter is that alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties are not substantiated. Complaint being devoid of merits is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be also consigned. <br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 20.3.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br />