Order-14.
Date-11/03/2016.
Complainants Smt. Hasi Roy and Sri Amitabha Roy by filing this complaint has submitted that complainants are Saving Bank Account Holders having Savings Bank A/C No. 084010100094230 (Senior Citizen) in the bank of ops in the year 2008 both complainants opened a Term Deposit A/C No. 913040015993921 amounting to Rs. 15,00,000/- and at the time of opening of the said Term Deposit it was instructed by complainants that the same should be renewed from time to time by ops even if no renewal instructions were provided by complainants on the date of maturity of such term deposit.
Complainants wanted a loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- against the aforesaid Term Deposit for purchasing a car and after applying for the said loan ops transferred the aforesaid sum to complainants’ Savings Bank A/C No. 084010100094230 and opened an OD A/c No. 084010300004473 to the tune of Rs. 6,50,000/- and it was informed by the ops that the rate of interest on the said Overdraft account would be 2 percent more than the rate of interest paid by the ops on the aforesaid Term Deposit.
Accordingly complainants started repayment of the said OD A/c No. 084010300004473 month by month and the same continued till 02.04.2014 and throughout this entire period ops never gave them any notice of renewal of the aforesaid Term Deposit and it was extended from time to time by ops.
On and from September 2014 complainants found that the interest on FD which was usually being credited in the savings bank account of complainants was not being done and when complainant no.2 enquired to the op no.1, complainant no.2 was informed by the bank that henceforth the entire interest amount on the aforesaid Term Deposit which was being transferred to the Savings Bank Account would not be so transferred by the entire interest amount of the aforesaid Term Deposit would be adjusted against the Overdraft Account and complainants accepted the proposal of the ops and the OD Account was being repaid accordingly.
As a major portion of the OD amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- had been repaid and the complainant no.2 visited the op no.1 on 07.03.2015 to get a statement of Overdraft Account he found that the OD Account has been closed after adjusting the dues from the principal amount of the Term Deposit as the term deposit accordingly was matured on 23.02.2015.
Complainant no.2 demanded an explanation from the op no.1 as no notice of maturity of the said Term Deposit or the adjustment of the Overdraft Account against the principal amount of the Term Deposit was even served upon complainants and moreover regular payments had been made in to the OD account by complainants and the said overdraft account was almost on the verge of being settled as on and from September 2014 the ops were crediting the entire interest on the term deposit to the overdraft account directly.
But the officials of the op no.1 could not provide any explanation for the same and stated that it generally does not happen and thereafter started insisting upon the complainant no.2 to make a fresh term deposit on the residuary amount of the term deposit and thereafter create a new Overdraft Account after closing the earlier Overdraft Account. When the complainant no.2 requested the ops to renew the Term Deposit and re-open the overdraft account as it was the hard earned money of the complainants but ops insisted on making a fresh overdraft account as they would be rewarded by the higher officials of the ops for creating a new Overdraft Account after closure of the previous overdraft account.
Curious enough though the Overdraft Account was closed as per the verbatim of the ops and the overdue adjusted against the principal sum of the term deposit yet the said official of the op instructed the complainant no.2 to give in writing to them to close the Overdraft Account and on the self same day on 07.03.2015 complainants wrote a letter to the ops instructing them to close the Overdraft Account and expressed their grievances to the negligent manner of banking services provided by the ops and ops duly acknowledged receipt of the said letter.
But even after receiving of such letter the officials of the op no.1 stated that it was compulsory on the part of the complainants to fill up a form of ‘Closure of Our OD Account with you’ and according to the format of the ops and complainants did the same also.
On 07.03.2015 the official of op no.1 stated that a sum of Rs. 12,59,248/- was lying to the credit of account of complainants and complainants being dissatisfied with the negligent banking services provided by the ops decided to invest their money in fixed deposits of other nationalized institutions and as such issued a cheque amounting to Rs. 12,37,000/- drawn on the Savings Bank Account of Axis Bank Ltd. but on 17.03.2015 complainants came to know that the said cheque has returned for insufficient funds of the aforesaid Savings Bank Account.
Thereafter on updating the pas book in the ops’ bank on 17.03.2015, complainants found out that even after transferring the account closure proceeds on 23.02.2015 a further sum of Rs. 39,263/- has been debited by ops on 07.03.2015 on the head .Cr to Xfer account due to closure.. Moreover a sum of Rs. 393/- has been debited from the savings bank account due to the return of the cheque.
So ops being engaged in providing banking services to its customers is supposed to be the custodian of the monies of the customers lying with them but the ops have acted in the most negligent and deceitful manner and they malafidely closed the Overdraft Account and the Term Deposit Account without notice and thereafter insisted on production of instructions upon them to close the Overdraft Account and it is no doubt an irregular act on the part of the ops and due to such sort of act, complainants suffered financial loss, interest etc. and deduction of Rs. 39,263/- is completely out of system and moreover the entire matter was done back behind the knowledge of the complainants for which complainants has been suffered much and it is no doubt an unfair practice on the part of the Bank and negligent manner of service for which this present complaint is filed by the complainants for redressal.
On the other hand op Bank by filing written statement submitted that no doubt the complainants are a holder of a Joint Savings Bank A/C No. 084010100094230 with op no.1. Complainants opened a term deposit with op no.1 Branch bearing A/c No. 084010400304580 for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- with an instruction for auto-renewal on and from the date of maturity of the term deposit.
Complainants also opted for an overdraft of Rs. 6,50,000/- for purchasing a car and for which an overdraft was extended and an overdraft account bearing A/c No. 084010300004473 was opened and the overdraft account was issued against the fixed deposit which was kept as security for the overdraft account.
But at the time of opening the term deposit, the quarterly interest was credited to the savings bank account of the complainants and subsequently the interest was adjusted with the installment amount of the overdraft account.
The first term deposit was opened by the complainants was closed in the month of March-2013 (22.03.2013) and subsequently a new term deposit account bearing A/c No. 913040015993921 for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- was opened on 22.03.2013 and it was matured on 22.02.2015 and this new term deposit account was opened with the instruction of .auto-closure. without any instruction for renewal. Thus the new term deposit was automatically closed on 22.02.2015. So, the overdraft account was still active the new term deposit was marked lien.
Since the new term deposit account was fixed to mature on 22.02.2015 with auto-closure mandate and the term deposit was marked as lien and on the date of maturity the overdraft account was active and the op bank deducted the balance amount due of the overdraft account from the term deposit and thereby realizing their dues and credited the rest amount to the savings bank account of the complainants.
In fact the systems have been programmed in such a manner that it will automatically execute the functions of every customer on the date fixed manually and there is no scope of interference unless and until specific written request is received from the customer to alter any date of any function and there is no deficiency of service from the op bank in this regard on the part of op bank.
It is further mentioned that during the time the overdraft facility availed of by the complainants and it was in operation and running and due to some reason the interest on the overdraft account was not received from the complainants. As soon as the remaining amount due from the overdraft account was realized from the matured term deposit account and the balance transferred to the savings bank account the op bank deducted an amount of Rs. 39,263/- being the unclaimed interest amount on the overdraft account.
Fact remains that op bank has always excelled in customer service and have always given them the highest priority and looked after their interests. So, there is no negligence and deficiency on the part of the ops for which ops prayed for dismissal of this present complaint.
Decision with reasons
After hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the statement of Overdraft A/C No. 084010300004473 it is found that against that account Overdraft facility was there and truth is that complainants against that account purchased a car by taking overdraft loan of Rs. 6,50,000/- and from the statement of account as submitted by the op against that account dated 23.02.2015, it is found that as per payment complainants already paid Rs. 14,50,990/- and against that loan account, op bank is entitled to get Rs. 14,50,842/-.
But peculiar factor is that overdraft amount was taken for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- and against that complainant already paid Rs. 14,50,990/- and that is closing balance and from that statement of account, it is clear that complainants already paid the entire amount including interest etc. From thatfinal statement, it is found that there is no due in respect of overdraft account.
Most interesting factor is that against Overdraft Loan of Rs. 6,50,000/-, complainants paid Rs. 14,50,990/-. Another factor is that complainants being aggrieved by the banking service provided by the op and for without any notice to the complainants for adjusting the dues of overdraft account against, complainants’ Term Deposit account prayed for final closure of the account. No doubt balance of matured amount was credited to the account of the complainants on 07.03.2015 but being aggrieved by the action or in action made by the ops, complainants submitted such .closure of our overdraft account.. Thereafter ops were silent.
Truth is that Rs. 15,00,000/- was deposited on 22.04.2011 and same was automatically renewed on 22.03.2013 upto22.02.2015, that means that there was a prayer of the complainants at the time of opening that FD account bearing No. 084010400304580 and from the ops’ own documents it is proved that it was automatically renewed upto 22.02.2015 starting from 22.04.2011. So, it is clear that there was instruction for auto-renewal it was the duty of the ops for their auto-renewal after maturity on 22.02.2015 when against overdraft account, complainants were very regular in payment of the monthly EMI or repayment.
Truth is that quarterly interest of the FD had been credited against the overdraft account regularly. So, there was no fault on the part of the complainants in respect of the payment against overdraft account. Then question is why without any notice, ops adjusted the same without renewing the fixed deposit account and in this regard practically there was no explanation of the ops.
Moreover from the ops’ statement of account it is found that overdraft account is completely satisfied even before deduction of huge amount when complainants already paid of Rs. 14,50,990/- and thereafter another rupees two lakhs and odd were deducted butafter that there was no question of further deduction. But without any justified reasons another amount of Rs. 39,263/- was deducted as unclaimed interest. But such a question does not arise in view of the fact that the statement of account after realization of two lakhs and above from the fixed deposit account, it was adjusted. But from the reply of the ops, op has admitted that principal amount of overdraft was Rs. 6,50,000/- and interest accrued of Rs. 3,87,879/-. Then the figure would be Rs. 10,37,879/-.
But practically from the statement of account submitted by the ops, it is found against overdraft principal amount of Rs. 6,50,000/-, and interest op already got Rs. 14,50,990/- what complainants already paid against their claimed amount of Rs. 10,37,879/- but the account of statement submitted by the ops supports that more than that is realised. Even it is clear that huge excess amount has been deducted by the ops back behind the knowledge of the complainants and without giving any notice to the complainants but there was scope on the part of the complainants to verify the same. However the op bank unscrupulously deducted excess amount than that of the actual amount though actually the op bank is entitled to Rs.10,37,879/- as per their reply against question No.10 of the complainants whereas they deducted already an amount of Rs.14,50,990/-.
So, it is clear that overdraft account was opened on 18.06.2008 and it was closed ultimately on 23.02.2015 that is on the date of maturity of the fixed deposit account and within that period, complainants already paid Rs. 14,50,990/-. But ops claimed that they are entitled to Rs. 10,37,879/- which is admitted by the ops in the Question No.10 in their reply.
So, fact remains that op bank realized excess amount without any reason and without any cause. It is also fact that back behind the knowledge of the complainants, the same was done and it is no doubt unfortunate activities on the part of the op bank and in fact ops practically renewed the said fixed deposit twice. But on the last occasion it was not auto-renewedbut was closed and a big amount of rupees two lakhs and above was deducted and adjusted with overdraft account. But such an act on the part of the op bank is no doubt uncalled for in view of the fact when in another two occasions it was auto-renewed without any application of complainants, then it is clear that the mandate was there for auto-renewal which was made manually but that was not done on the third occasion and unscrupulously it was closed and rupees two lakhs and above was deducted and same was credited in the overdraft account but overdraft account is not closed. The very fact simply proves that ops’ act is completely dishonest in nature but in written version the false pleas are taken which is no doubt deceitful in nature.
Truth is that an application for closure of overdraft account was submitted with specific grievance noted by the complainants that fault was done back behind the knowledge of the complainants and for such an act they are aggrieved and overdraft account is already closed. But ops have tried to show that overdraft account has not been closed so it was unfair practice on the part of the op bank which is proved and truth is that there is no justified or legal ground to deduct a further a sum of Rs. 39,263/- and such a deduction is no doubt is uncalled for, illegal, bad in law and there was no justified ground for deducting the said amount. But we have gathered from the ops’ own activities, that complainants’ back behind the knowledge they did such act and in fact it is the mandate of the RBI to inform the customer before deducting any amount for adjustment from fixed deposit whether complainants are willing to get the matured amount when complainants were not defaulter in respect of the overdraft account and no such demand notice for any unpaid amount was sent rather is payment was made after deducting interest from the fixed deposit account automatically. So, complainants were not defaulter in payment of EMI or repayment of overdraft account etc. and ops have not anyway stated that complainants were defaulter in respect of overdraft account.
On the other hand it is found that complainants paidRs. 14,50,990/- though as per ops’ version ops are entitled to get only Rs. 10,37,879/- so it is provedalready excess amount has been paid. So, the whole act on the part of the ops is preposterous and they have no doubt deceived the complainants in so many manners.
Another factor is that as per last four years RBI guidelines if any person does not file any application for renewal of the fixed deposit, then fixed deposit shall be automatically renewed for another one year and when in the present case complainants never prayed for withdrawal of the said amount or maturity, then it was the duty on the part of the ops bank to inform the complainants whether complainants are willing to withdraw or to refundbut that was also not done.
About closure of overdraft account, ops are very much silent and about any misconduct as consumer, ops have nothing to say. But from the bank’s own document it is evident that complainants were very regular in respect of the repayment of their overdraft account and they actually paid already Rs. 14,50,990/-. But actually ops bank is entitled to get Rs. 10,37,879/-. Then how in such a manner op further deducted Rs. 38,263/- and there is no justified ground to deduct which is proved beyond any manner of doubt.
As per RBI guideline as enumerated in the banking services and customer direction, it is specifically mentioned that before taking any final action it is the duty on the part of the op bank to give all information about the action which has been taken by the bank and if bank does not give such information, in that case it is laches on the part of the op banking services as per RBI guideline and as per Banking Regulations, it is the duty of the bank to protect the interest of the depositors and their monies and savings and at the same time to ensure safety and soundless of the banking system and to ensure that bank shall not adopt any illegal activities. But in the present case, it is proved that in dealing with the matter keeping the consumers (complainants) in darkness, they did it and one after another deduction is made without any reasonable ground, though they are entitled to getRs. 10,37,879/- but they failed to give no explanation for what reason they have already realisedRs. 14,50,990/- against overdraft account and why fixed deposit had not been automatically renewed for another one year as per banking rules when it was renewed twice. But as per RBI guidelines and Banking rules bank must always act for the best of the customers and bank must follow the principal and prudence and it is specifically mentioned that customer must not be kept in captivity under any circumstances that all those policies are enumerated i.e. banking code but has not followed the same.
Most interesting factor is that in this case there was no fault on the part of the complainants who are regular customer and they are not defaulter, they paid repayment against overdraft account in a particular manner and they already paid excess amount against actual demand of the ops.
Considering the peculiar fact and the above materials on record and observation we are convinced to hold that the bank should make its commitment to pay the maturity value of fixed deposit and interest admissible and it can be renewed for another one year as per Banking Rules but without giving any notice to the complainants everything was done back behind the knowledge of the complainants which is proved and for which as per RBI guideline and also Banking Regulation Act, no doubt ops have deceived the complainants in so many manner and at the same time they have adopted unfair trade practice and further by their act, they have caused financial loss and further harassed the complainants mentally and also by adopting some illegal method bypassing RBI Rules and guidelines of the Standard Board of Banks.
Lastly after considering the entire material facts, we have gathered that if actually overdraft loan would not be cleared in that case the fixed deposit account shall be continued as a security and that is the procedure that has also not been followed and vital negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the op bank is well proved for not to inform anything to the complainants before taking such action without any reasons.
In the light of the above observation, we are convinced to hold that no doubt complainant have been able to prove the negligent and deficient manner of service on the part of the ops beyond any manner of doubt and their adoption of unfair trade practice and deceitful manner of trade and for which this complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against ops with cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
Ops jointly and severally are hereby directed to refund Rs. 3,00,000/- within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of Forum’s order, ops shall have to pay penal interest 10 percent p.a. over the same till full satisfaction of the decree.
For adopting unfair trade practice and for deceitful manner of trade and also for causing mental pain and agony to the complainants, ops jointly and severally shall have to pay compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants.
To save the customer at large from the hands of the ops who have adopted unfair trade practice, penal damages of Rs. 25,000/- is imposed against the ops and same shall be deposited to this Forum by the ops jointly and severally.
Ops are here by directed to comply the order very strictly failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, ops shall be prosecuted u/s 25 read with Section 27 of C.P. Act, 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon ops.
