Delhi

StateCommission

FA/577/2014

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SUSHILA AGGARWAL - Opp.Party(s)

07 Sep 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision: 07.09.2015

First Appeal- 577/2014

IN THE MATTER OF:-

1. HDFC Bank Ltd.

(Erstwhile Centurion Bank of Punjab)

B-34, Ashok Vihar

Delhi

(Through Its Branch Manager)

                                                                                       …..Appellant

 

Versus

Smt. Sushila Aggarwal

W/o Sh. Madan Gopal Aggarwal

R/o B-50, Ashok Vihar,

Phase-I, Delhi-110052

 

                                                                                    …..Respondent CORAM

(Justice Veena Birbal, President)

(Salma Noor, Member)

(O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 (Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short ‘The Act’) wherein challenge has been made to order dated 06.08.2013 passed in complaint case no. 283/09 wherein the appellant/OP has been directed as under:

        “i.     Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 30,000/- along with interest @ 8% p.a. w.e.f. 24/08/2006 till payment.

        ii.     Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as the cost of litigation”.

2.             Facts relevant for the disposal of present appeal are as under:

        Respondent herein was the complainant before the District Forum she had filed a complaint u/s 12 of the Act alleging therein that she deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- with Centurian Bank of Punjab on 25.08.2006 for one year. The said bank issued a fixed deposit receipt for a period of 14 in her name which was to carry interest @ 8 % per annum. Thereafter, respondent/complainant went to the bank for premature encashment of the FDR but concerned officers did not acceded to her request. Even after maturity the proceeds of FDR were not given to her. She also wrote a letter to the higher authorities. The complainant also served a notice dated 25.08.2008 to appellant/bank through registered AD cover. Despite that maturity proceeds of aforesaid FDR were not given to her. The respondent had alleged that the action of the bank is not releasing FDR amount to her amounted to deficiency in service within the meaning of Act. The respondent/complainant had made a prayer for making the payment of aforesaid FDR to her along with interest, compensation and harassment charges.

3.             The appellant/bank had opposed the complaint case by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that complainant had deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- on 25.08.2006 for the purpose of issuing FDR for a period of 1 year. Accordingly, bank had issued in her favour fixed deposit bearing No. CTD 0536360973015 one year on 25.08.2016. It was alleged that after 3 days she had approached the bank requested that aforesaid fixed deposit be broken and requested for issuance of another FDR for a period of 5 years. Accordingly, at her request the fixed deposit was broken on 28.08.2006 the new FDR No. CTD 0536360973042 was issued in her favour and in its place new FDR No. CTD 6536360973042 for a period of 5 years was issued infant @8% per annum. It was alleged that the claim was misconceived. It was alleged that she had deposited money only once and after encahsing the previous FDR within 3 days, the second FDR was issued. It was alleged that the said FDR was also encashed by her on 13.12.2007 i.e. before maturity period. It was alleged that a false and frivolous case was filed by her.

4.     Both the parties had led evidence before the District Forum in the form of affidavit. After hearing the parties the District Forum held that burden was on the appellant bank to have produced the record showing that earlier FDR was encashed by the complainant on 28.08.2006  which was not done whereas the respondent/complainant had placed on record copy of the FDR in question which did not show having been encashed on 28.08.2006 as was alleged. Accordingly it was held that the appellant bank was deficient in not encashing the FDR in question of the respondent/complainant. Accordingly, the directions as stated above were given to the appellant/bank.

5.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed.

6.             The matter has been listed for final arguments number of times. Every time a request on one ground or the other was made on behalf of the appellant seeking adjournment in the matter. Today also it is stated that the main counsel for the appellant is out of station and adjournment is requested. We may note that previous costs of Rs. 1000/- which was imposed on 30.04.2015 another costs of Rs. 15,00/- imposed on 23.07.2014 has also been paid by the appellant despite the fact that on 23.07.2014 the Manager of appellant bank had appeared. No further opportunity is grated to the appellant.  

7.             Accordingly we have perused the record and heard the respondent who is represented by her son.

8.             We may also mention that the Centurian Bank was later on taken even by appellant bank. It is admitted position that the appellant bank had issued FDR for a sum of Rs. 30,000/-  bearing No._________ in the name of the respondent/complainant on 25.08.2006  for a period of 1 year. The case of the respondent/complainant is that same was never encahsed. The stand of appellant/bank is that the aforesaid FDR was enchashed and within that proceeds another FDR for same amount was prepared in its place on 28.08.2006. The appellant bank has not produced records before the District Forum or before this Commission to substantiate its stand. The respondent/complainant is still holding FDR in question with her. The AR of respondent has also shown the same to us. There is no ______ on the said FDR of appellant/bank of having encashing the same or that the said FDR was cancelled or from its proceed another FDR was prepared on _________ as is alleged. It is not believable that the bank will encash the FDR without making entries in the relevant records. The appellant/bank ought to have placed on record relevant record substantiating its stand before the District Forum or before the Commission to show that subsequent FDR was issued after encahsing the FDR in question. The burdent was on the appellant/bank to substantiate its stand. However, the appellant/bank has failed to discharge the burden.

        No fault is seen in the reasoning given by the District Forum. No perversity is there in the impugned order which calls for interference of this Commission.

        The appeal stands dismissed.

        A copy of this order as per statutory requirement be sent to the parties free of costs.

        File be consigned to record room.         

   (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

(Salma Noor)

Member

 

(O.P. Gupta)

Member (Judicial)