Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/62/2021

Nar Singh Dass S/o Kapur Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Syndicate bank - Opp.Party(s)

Vindo Sharma

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    62 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         25.02.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 29.07.2022

 

Nar Singh Dass s/o Shri Kapur Lal, aged about 57 years, r/o H.No.103/6, Sadhu Mandi, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

Syndicate Bank (now merged in Canara Bank), Branch Office Mohan Nagar, District Kurukshetra, through its Branch Manager.

                                                                                      ...Respondent.

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Sandeep Garg, Branch Head, Canara Bank with Shri S.C. Saini,                          Advocate for the Opposite Party.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant is holding Saving Bank Account No.82922010005261 with OP branch, which is now merged in Canara Bank. He deposited Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2010 vide FDR No.82924050004183 and Rs.20,000/- on 09.12.2010, vide FDR No.82924050004586 both for one year. The OP official assured that he has no need to come again for its renewal purpose, as the same would be automatically renewed through auto renewal. As such, he did not approach to the bank in this regard. In the first week of February 2021, when he approached to OP Bank along with original FDRs, for getting the maturity amount of FDRs, then, official of OP told that FDRs were never renewed after lapse of one year and payment is still lying as it is and refused to pay the FDRs interest for remaining period except one year. The OP bank misappropriate his funds from the last many years i.e. beyond one year of the FDRs. So, under these circumstances, OP bank committed a criminal breach of trust as well as adopted illegal and unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service, due to which, he suffered huge mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss as well, constraining him to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OP appeared before this Commission and filed its written statement stating therein that the complainant made fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2010 and Rs.20,000/- on 09.12.2010, both for one year. It is wrong that official of OP assured that there is no need to get the FD renewed and would be renewed automatically, as at that time, there was no such system in the bank to get the FD renewed automatically nor there were any such guidelines from the RBI. The complainant never renewed his FD after a lapse of one year, hence he is not entitled for the interest as per FD, but he is entitled for the interest as per Saving Bank Account, which OP is ready to pay. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

4.                In support to support his case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, OP tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A in its evidence and closed the same.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and gone through the case file carefully.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is holding Saving Bank Account with OP branch and made Fixed Deposit of Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2010 and Rs.20,000/- on 09.12.2010, both for one year. At that time, the OP official assured that the FDRs would be automatically renewed through auto renewal, as such, the complainant did not approach to the bank. In the first week of February 2021, for getting the maturity amount of FDRs, the complainant approached OP bank, where, the official of OP told that FDRs were never renewed after lapse of one year and payment is still lying as it is and refused to pay the FDRs interest for remaining period except one year. The OP bank misappropriate his funds from the last many years i.e. beyond one year of the FDRs and committed a criminal breach of trust as well as adopted illegal and unfair trade practise as well as deficiency in service. In order to support his contentions, he placed reliance upon case law titled Yerra Vani Vs. The Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, CC No.251/2017, DOD 1305.2019 (District Commission, Hyderabad).

8.                The learned counsel for OP has argued that the complainant made fixed deposit of Rs.40,000/- on 26.10.2010 and Rs.20,000/- on 09.12.2010, both for one year. It is wrong that official of OP assured that there is no need to get the FD renewed and would be renewed automatically, as at that time, there was no such system in the bank to get the FD renewed automatically nor there were any such guidelines from the RBI. The complainant never renewed his FD after a lapse of one year, hence he is not entitled for the interest as per FD, but he is entitled for the interest as per Saving Bank Account, which OP is ready to pay. As such, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal the present complaint against it.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant made two FDRs i.e. for Rs.20,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 09.12.2010 and 26.10.2010, for the period of one year, vide FDRs Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 respectively.

10.              The grievance of the complainant is that at the time of making the FDRs, the official of OP assured about auto-renewal of said FDRs, but it never renewed after lapse of one year and payment is still lying as it is and refused to pay the FDRs interest for remaining period except one year. On the other hand, the OP contended that it is wrong that official of OP assured the complainant that the said FDRs would be automatically renewed and there is no need to visit him to renew the said FDRs. It is further contended that at that time, there was no such system in the bank to get the FD renewed automatically nor there were any such guidelines from the RBI. As such, complainant is entitled for the interest as per Saving Bank Account, which OP bank is ready to pay.  

11.              It is well settled principle of law that the complainant is duty bound to prove his/her complaint by standing on his/her own legs and he/she is not supposed to take the advantage of weakness of the OP or to peep into the defence of the respondent. In the case in hand, complainant alleged that official of OP assured him that expiry of one year, the said FDRs would be automatically renewed, as such, there is no need to visit him in the OP branch, but this plea of complainant has no force, because the complainant has not placed any documents on the record, showing that he was ever given such assurances by the official of OP bank. Moreover, to support his contentions, the OP bank produced Notifications dated 02.07.2021 issued by Reserve Bank of India regarding “Review of Instructions on Interest on overdue domestic deposits” as Mark-A, wherein, it is mentioned that “2 .On a review of these instructions, it has been decided that if a Term Deposit (TD) mature and proceeds are unpaid, the amount left unclaimed with the bank shall attract rate of interest as applicable to savings account or the contracted rate of interest on the matured TD, whichever is lower.” So, as per this Notification, it is clear as per RBI guidelines, if the amount of Fixed Deposit/Term Deposit left unclaimed after the period of maturity with the bank, then the same shall attract rate of interest as applicable to savings account. The case law citied (supra) produced by counsel for the complainant is not helpful to the case of complainant, being rested on different footings, as in that case law, the condition regarding auto-renewal of Fixed Deposit after expiry of maturity period under the scheme, was printed on the backside of the bonds document, whereas, in the case in hand, no such condition was printed on the backside of the FD document, as such, facts of this case law is different from the facts of the present case.  

12.              Keeping in view the above facts & circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that admittedly, the complainant made FDRs for a period of one year and after lapse of that one year, he has not approached the OP bank to renew those FDRs, therefore, as per above Notifications, the OP bank is liable to pay the interest of saving account on the said FDRs beyond the period of one year. Hence, we found no deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. The complaint is devoid on merits and same is liable to be dismissed.

13.              Hence, due to the reasons stated hereinbefore, we dismiss the complaint, it being devoid on merits, leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigations. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the records, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:29.07.2022.

    

                                                                                       (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                 DCDRC, Kurukshetra.

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.