FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s. 35 of the C.P. Act, 2019.
Brief facts that, the complainant invested Rs. 75,000/- for a period of six months from 18.06.2019 to 16.12.1999 with Times Bank. Subsequently, Times Bank has been merged with OP HDFC Bank Ltd. in February, 2000. Being a Judicial Officer she was transferred to different districts of West Bengal and she never approached the Bank for credit the maturity Term Deposit amount. The maturity should have been automatically renewed. The OP did not inform her regarding maturity of Term Deposit Receipt and pay any heed to the legal notice dated 10.08.2020. Finding no other way out, the complainant filed the present consumer complaint.
Despite Service of notice, neither any one appeared on behalf of the OP Bank nor any Written Version is filed on their behalf. Accordingly, vide order dated 29.01.2021 the consumer case is proceeded ex parte against the OP and their right to file WV is forfeited. They even did not choose to file any application to set aside the ex parte order.
Complainant, Mrs. Bandana Ray has filed her evidence by way of affidavit supporting the allegations made in the complaint.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant has taken us through the consumer complaint as also the evidence adduced in support of the complaint. On perusal of the photocopy of Term Deposit Receipt dated 18.06.1999 issued by Times Bank, it is clear that complainant invested Rs. 75,000/- for six months from 18.06.1999 to 16.12.1999 and the interest is to be paid quarterly at the rate of 10 percentper annum. Complainant alleged that Times Bank subsequently merged with OP HDFC Bank Ltd. in February, 2000 and being a Judicial Officer she was transferred to different districts of West Bengal. OP Bank never intimated her with regard to maturity of Term Deposit Receipt. It is also pertinent to note that maturity amount should have been automatically renewed until withdrawn. Photocopy of notice dated 10.08.2020 produced by the complainant goes to show that despite request the OP failed to provide any information regarding the Term Deposit Receipt. The OP has failed to pay the matured Term Deposit amount along with interest. Non- payment of matured amount is tantamount to deficiency in service. The Judgment of the Hon’ble NCDRC reported in (2007) 4 CPJ 126 (United Bank of India vs. Devinder Kumar) relied upon the Ld. Advocate for the complainant is not applicable to the present consumer case as the facts of this case is not similar with the facts of the relied decision.
Despite notice being served on the OP as well as on the application filed U/s 35 of the CP Act, 2019 for the reasons best known to them, the OP neither put appearance nor filed WV in support of their defense. Hence, the facts averred in the complaint remain un-rebutted. Under these circumstances, the question regarding reasons for non-payment of matured Term Deposit amount and why the OP Bank not in a position to pay the matured Term Deposit amount also remain unanswered.
In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the present consumer complaint is allowed with following directions:-
- The OP is directed to pay matured amount of Rs. 75,754/- to the complainant within 45 days from today.
- The OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant for mental pain and agony.
- The OP is also directed to pay cost of litigation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant.
Amount of compensation and cost be paid by the OP to the complainant within a period of 45 days from passing of this order.
With these directions consumer complaint is disposed of.
Copy of Judgment be provided to the parties as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties.
