Per Shri Atul D. Alsi – Hon’ble President.

              The complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2(b) R/W 52(d) of Consumer Protection Act.  The opponent No. 1 is a bank having its main office at Mumbai (Opponent No.2).   

2.            The complainant had opened an account in the name of his minor son master Rohit Ganesh Uprikar as per the scheme of the bank of Opponent No.1 on dated 11/12/1992.  As per the scheme of the bank opponent No.1 complainant had to pay Rs. 100/- p.m. till 60 months and the complainant will get the amount as well as interest of @ 12% till the date of maturity and as the scheme complainant had paid Rs. 100/- p.m. till 60 months.  As per scheme date of maturity was on 11/12/2011 and as such from 11/12/1992 till 11/12/2011 the deposited amount and its interest 12% was calculated and complainant will have to receive the amount of Rs. 50,652/- on the date of maturity i.e. on 11/12/2011..

3.            On the date of maturity i.e. on dated 11/12/2011 when complainant went to the bank for withdrawal of the said amount  on 11/12/2011 complainant was surprised when the employees of the bank had said there is no such type of account and scheme in the bank.  The  complainant had several times visited the bank but there is no response from the bank of opponent No.1 and Complainant had issued Reg. Post A/D notice to opponent No.1 through counsel Adv. S.S.Ansari on dated 17/02/2012.

4.            Thereafter, the complainant had given the application on 16/05/2012  to opponent No.1 under Right to Information Act to get the complainant know the details of the persons who had opened the account under “Mamta Deposit” and detail about “Mamta Deposit”.  But as per reply they have declined to give the information and stated that there is no live account on 15/05/2012 under the scheme.  The complainant had preferred on appeal against the order of dated 14/06/2012 as no proper information was received under Right to Information.  But it was also of no use.

5.            The act of opponent No.1 should that there act was to deliberate avoid and with held the amount of complainant.  The complainant is a poor man and had deposited the amount looking to the future of his son.  But opponent No.1 along with opponent No. 2 had prayed fraud with complainant and had trying to with held the amount of complainant.  Complainant is claiming the amount of Rs. 50,652/- along with the interest of 18% p.a. till disposal of the complaint and also claiming to pay the cost of Rs.5000/- towards the litigation expenses.

6.            After receiving the notice issued by the Forum, the O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed their written statement before the forum. 

7.            In their reply, the O. P. No. 1 & 2 submits that, the complainant has not produced the Mamta Deposit Certificate, it can not be said that he had opened an account on 11/12/1992 in name of his said minor son Rohit as per the norms of the Scheme.  Similarly, as the complainant has also not produced counters of pay-in-slips for alleged deposits of Rs. 100/- per month for 60 months as alleged and hence he can not claim to have deposited such amount with the O. P. bank. 

8.            It is not disputed that the complainant had submitted an application dated 11/11/2012 to the O.P. Bank for claiming said amount of Rs. 50,562/-.  It is specifically stated that the O.P. Bank advised the complainant to produce original Mamta Deposit Receipt/Certificate dt. 11/12/1997 as well as details of his Savings Bank Account as guardian of his minor son Rohit.  At this juncture it is specifically stated that said scheme was already withdrawn by the O. P. Bank long back, interested persons had closed their such accounts prematurely prior to the year 2000 and that the complainant also might have already encashed such certificate, if any, prematurely before the year 2000 by surrendering the certificate and that is the reason why he was not in a position to produce the same and had been falsely alleging that no such documents were issued to him.

9.            Submission of copy of the so called “Pass Book” to the O.P. No.1 is a matter of record but it is stated that it was not sufficient to substantiate claim of the complainant and the Savings Bank Account of the guardian is must as stated hereinabove.    It is true that as per said reply, there was no live account with the O.P. Bank under the aforesaid Scheme at the relevant time.

10.                   It is denied that the O.P.No.1 or No.2 has played any fraud with complainant or that they have been trying to withheld any such amount of complainant.  Claim of Complainant of Rs. 50,652/- or any other amount for that matter is denied.

11.                   It is specifically stated that in so-far-as prayer clause (2) is concerned, as per banking practice record of settled claims under the Mamta Scheme were preserved by O.P. Bank for 3 years only and manual records prior to the year 2000 being more than 10 years are not available as mentioned in Reply dt. 12/04/2012 given by the O.P.No.1 to the complainant.  Still if the complainant produces the required original documents as mentioned hereinabove, the O.P. Bank will certainly consider the claim of the complainant. 

              Under the circumstances, the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and is liable to be dismissed with maximum compensatory costs.                

12.                   The complainant has filed Copy of pass book at page no. 11,  Copy of application given to O. P. No. 1 at page no. 12, Copy of notice through counsel to O.P. No. 1 & 2 at page no. 13, Copy of registered post receipts  at page no. 15, Copy of reply given by the O.P. at page no. 16, Copy of notice given by counsel of complainant to O. P. at page no. 17, Copy of registered post receipt at page no. 19, Copy of acknowledgement at page no. 20 & 21, Copy of reply given by the O.P. No. 1 at page no. 23, Copy of application given under R.T. I. at page no. 24, Copy of reply given under R. T. I.  by O. P. at page no. 25,  Copy of application given to O. P. No. 1 at page no. 27 on record.

13.                   The counsel for complainant Adv. Ms. Shabana Ansari argued that the complainant had opened an account in the name of minor son master Rohit Ganesh Uprikar on 11/12/1992 as per scheme.  The complainant did not get Rs.50,652/- on maturity.  The complainant has filed copy of passbook issued by O.P..  The O.P. did not issued certificate of Mamta Deposit.  The complainant at several times requested  to release the amount of sought document  and information through Right to Information Act but O.P. fail to give the documents and information and amount as per Mamta Deposit on maturity.  Therefore, the act of O.P. is coming under negligency of service hence complaint with prayer may be allowed.

14.                   The learned counsel for O.P. Mr. J. L. Parmar argued that the guardian had not opened saving account and did not submitted the original certificate of Mamta Deposit after several demands made from O. P.. The bank does not have record of Mamta Scheme.  The scheme is withdrawn before 2000.   The applicant might have encashed the amount.  The last claim was settled in January 2009.  The record of last ten years is destroyed and hence not available with bank.  Hence, the case of complainant is not tenable and it may kindly be dismissed with cost.

15.                   Considering the rival contention of the party & submission made before us the following points arise for consideration & finding there on along with reasons.

REASONING & FINDINGS

16.                    The complainant had deposited Rs.100/- per month for 60 months under “Mamta Deposit Scheme”.   As per scheme the depositor get interest @ 12% p.a. till maturity and after maturity of 60 months the matured amount is to be reinvested and minor was become a joint account holder.   After 5 years the maturity value to be reinvested from second phase of 7 years in Double Benefit Deposit      plan for which “Mamta Deposit Certificate” was issued in the name of minor.  The maturity value for 2^nd phase was to be reinvested for third phase of 7 years under Mamta Deposit Certificate.  The maturity value at the end of such third phase was to be paid to investor.  Thus entire amount was to be paid to the investor after the end of 19 years.  The maturity date of the complainant’s deposit was 11/12/2011.

17.                   The complainant has filed a passbook of Mamta Deposit Scheme which contains installment amount of Rs.100/- for 60 months.  The pass book contains the 60 entries along with signature of bank authority.  The maturity date was mentioned as 11/12/2011 and maturity value is written as 50,652/-.  The O. P. had not specifically denied the pass book filed on record

18.                   The pass book contains same handwriting on front page for the documents filed by complainant at page no.47.  The complainant moved application for release entire amount on maturity with O.P.  The letter is duly acknowledged by O.P. on 11/01/2012.  The complainant issued notice on 17/02/2012 and 31/03/2012 which were received by O.P.  The complainant moved application in respect of detail information of Mamta Scheme of complainant on 16/05/2012 as per document no.13 and informed by O. P. that on 15/05/2012 no such account is available with O.P. (Bank).

19.                   The affidavit by way of evidence filed on record by Manager of Bank on page 55 stated that there was Mamta Deposit Scheme and Rs.100/- was to be deposited with 12% interest in first phase and after 5 years it was reinvested for another two terms of 7 years and on maturity of 19 years the entire amount was paid to minor who became major.  The O.P. claimed that the complainant might have withdrawn the amount before maturity.  The record of this scheme was preserved by bank for 3 years and record of prior to 2000 being more than 10 years are not available with the Bank.

20.                   The opposite party has to maintain records till maturity period of 19 years, such type of schemes are not coming under the guidelines of bank to destroy records.  The banking field is computerized & upgraded so any previous data of the record can be easily available and that could be filed on record.  Therefore the contention of non-availability of record is not acceptable to a given situation. 

21.                   The opposite party fails to prove by appropriate documentary evidence that the entire amount was paid as per banking entry in books of account to the complainant, therefore, the defence of O.P. in respect of payment might have paid to complainant is not proved.

22.                   The O.P. has not filed the necessary documents and order of destroying the record by way of evidence on affidavit by concerned authorities.  The O.P. is financial institute and it is duty of the bank to satisfy the customers from whom the amount is claimed as a deposit.  The O.P. fail to prove its defence by appropriate documentary evidence hence the contention of complainant is accepted, therefore the following order came to be passed.                          

-: ORDER :-

1.            The complainant’s complaint is partly allowed.

2.            The O. P. No. 1 & 2 is directed to pay Rs, 50,652/- for the maturity value of “Mamta Deposit” to the complainant @ 9% rate of interest from the date of the filling of case i.e.19.11.2012 till its realization.  

3.            The O. P. No. 1 & 2 is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards mental torture & agony along with cost of  litigation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.

4.            The O. P. No. 1 & 2 shall pay the above amount jointly & severally.         

5.            The above amount shall be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.