Delhi

East Delhi

CC/455/2014

SANTOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SYNDICATE BANK - Opp.Party(s)

08 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 455/14

 

Santosh Dixit

Proprietor – M/s. Santosh Dixit and Co.

CA 209, Vardhman Master Plaza

LSC, Ghazipur, Delhi – 110 096                                              ….Complainants

 

Vs.

 

Syndicate Bank

Hasanpur Depot Branch

Patparganj, Delhi – 110 092                                                          ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 29.05.2014

Judgment Reserved on:08.11.2016

Judgment Passed on: 10.11.2016

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari  (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By : Shri Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

JUDGEMENT

The complainant Santosh Dixit has filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Syndicate Bank(OP).

2.        Complainant have an FDR of Rs. 2,00,000/- with Syndicate Bank, Hasanpur Depot, I.P. Extn. Delhi -110 092 on 05.05.2008 for a period of 60 months and maturity value of Rs. 303308 on 05.05.2013.  On 09.07.2008, this FDR was premature renewed on 09.07.2008 for            Rs. 201357 for 23 months having maturity date 29.06.2010 and maturity value Rs. 241083/- being interest rate @ 9.5% p.a.  On maturity i.e. 29.06.2010, the complainant did not get this FDR renewed under the impression that as per banking rules, it was renewed automatically for a period, it was previous made for.  However, the bank did not renew the same on that day.  It is stated that as per Syndicate Bank rules, the bank has to inform 15 days prior to maturity date, to depositor seeking instructions as to whether the depositor was willing to renew the FDR or not.  However, no communication was sent to him.  On 17.02.2014, he approached bank to credit the fixed deposit with interest up to date into his banking account.  However, the bank did not inform him that interest after maturity will not be given to him.  It is stated that branch Manager did not told that the complainant will lose interest, which comes to approximately Rs. 8,000/-. 

It has further been stated that on 18.12.2014, when he approached the bank, he was surprised to see the Branch manager laughing on him, which shocked him.  Thus, it has been stated that behavior of the manager was unjustified, unfair and unethical.  Hence, the complainant has prayed that bank be instructed to pay an amount of interest on his FDR from 29.06.2010 to 17.02.2014, which comes to an amount of Rs. 2,41,083.

3.        Notice was given to Syndicate Bank (OP), who filed their written statement in which they have stated that the complainant was given the due interest i.e. FDR interest and saving bank interest on his amount as per the policy of OP and the complainant has received the same.  It is further stated that the complainant was given the interest of fixed deposit for the period, he opted to keep his money in the form of fixed deposit and thereafter, he was given the saving bank interest in the absence of instructions by the complainant, as the policy of the bank.  Other facts have also been denied.

4.        Complainant did not file any rejoinder to the written statement nor he filed any evidence in support of his complaint.

5.        Syndicate Bank have examined Shri K.C. Tudu, Senior Branch Manager of Syndicate Bank, Patparganj Branch (OP) who had deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the written statement.

6.        We have heard Ld. Counsel for OP, however, the complainant did not appear to argue.  We have perused the material placed on record.  It has been argued on behalf of OP that they have paid the interest for the period for which fixed deposit was made and for the remaining period at the rate applicable to the saving bank account.

            The fact that bank has paid the interest for the period of fixed deposit and for the subsequent period, in the absence of any instructions from the complainant, they have paid the simple interest as applicable to the saving bank account and the complainant having not examined himself, it cannot be said that Syndicate Bank (OP) was deficient in their services.  Therefore, there is no deficiency on the part of OP and they cannot be made liable for the same.  Thus, the complaint deserves dismissal and the same is dismissed.            

  Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

     

      (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President