Dt. of filing- 29/12/2017
Dt. of Judgement- 26/12/2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Hon’ble Member.
This petition of complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Amarnath Banerjee alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (referred to as OP hereinafter) namely (1) The Branch Manager , UCO Bank, B. T. Road Branch (2) The Zonal Manager, UCO Bank.
Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant being an A/C holder of OP No.1 intended to obtain loan of Rs.10,00,000/- for education of his son from OP No.1 against F.D. A/C. Nos.06760310062470 & 06760310062487 having principal amount of Rs. 5 lac each approached OP No.1 on 3.9.2012 but OP No.1 refused to sanction the same without showing any ground. The complainant has stated that he tried to convince OPO No.1 referring loans disbursed in favour of the complainant on two earlier occasions of Rs.10,00,000/- on 13.10.2009 and Rs. 2,22,000/- on 15.03.2010 against Fixed Deposit Certificate which were duly repaid by the complainant but the OP still turned down the proposal of loan made by the complainant and advised the complainant to encash his Fixed Deposit prematurely which was due to mature within one month. The complainant has further stated that the requested the OP to intimate him regarding penal deduction of premature encashment of the F.D. before closing the said F.D. Account so that he could take decision rightly. Subsequently the complainant handed over the F.D. Certificate to the OP on good faith but the OP failed to intimate the complainant regarding penal deduction for premature encashment and on updating his pass book the complainant found that he had to incur loss of an amount of Rs.83,948/- and being aggrieved he immediately contacted OP No.1 and requested to furnish statement of accounts and mode of calculation of penal interest but the OP did not pay any heed to that request . It is stated by the complainant that he lodged a complaint with the Consumer Affairs Department, Barrackpore, for redressal of this grievance and the said Department arranged a tripartite meeting on 23.03.2015 & 23.04.2015 and the complainant drew attention of the OP No.1 for redressal on various issues including excess penal deduction for premature encashment of F.D. Subsequently, the complainant updated his pass book and noticed that an amount of Rs. 23,760/- had been credited to his account on 9.6.2015 and the complainant vide letter’s dated 29.12.2016 & 24.11.2016 requested the OPs to state the reason for crediting Rs. 23,760/- of his savings account and mode of calculation but the letters remained un-replied. The complainant brought the matter to the Chief Manager, he Zonal Manager and the A.G.M. but that too yielded no fruitful result and, therefore, the complainant by filing the instant consumer complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to refund Rs.83,948/- with interest, to pay compensation and to pay litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-.
The complainant annexed Deposit Receipts photocopy of Bank A/C. Letter dated 25.11.2014 issued by the complainant to the Manager –In-Charge , UCO Bank, copy of complaint lodged before Consumer Affairs and Fair business practice Deposit Receipts of F.D. A/Cs. letter dated 29.12.2015 , 13.05.2016, 23.11.2016, 07.12.2016 issued by the complainant to the Branch Manager.
The OP contested the case by filing Written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that on request made by the complainant the F.D. A/C. Nos. 0676310062470 & 06760310062487 was prematurely closed and after deduction of penalty the balance of Rs. 592147/- for each A/C had been credited to the Savings account of the complainant on 03.09.2012. The OPs have further stated that an amount of Rs. 83,948/- had been deducted as to TDS in respect of both the FDs and also for penalty for premature closure of F.D. Accounts. Regarding earlier loan, the OPs have stated that said loan was adjusted from all the fixed deposits of the complainant and excess amount had been credited to three accounts of the complainant. Thus OPs prayed for dismissal of the case since, according to them, they have not committed any deficiency in providing service.
The complainant adduced evidence under the captions of “Reply of written version on behalf of the complainant” to which the OP filed questionnaire and the complainant filed affidavit in reply.
In course of argument, Ld. Advocate for the complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
Points for determination :
- Whether there is deficiency in providing service on the part of the OP.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for.
Decision with reasons :
Point Nos. 1 & 2 : Both points are taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision. The complainant claimed to have approached OP No.1 in respect of sanctioning a loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- against his two fixed deposit a/cs which was denied by OP and on refusal the complainant being advised by the OP to encash his F.Ds, deposited his F.D. Certificates with OP No.1 for premature closure of F.D. A/C.s and requested OP No.1 to intimate him regarding penal deduction for premature closure before closing of the said a/cs. but the OP did not intimate the same to him and closing the said FDs A/cs. disbursed the matured amount after deducting the penal charge which caused pecuniary damage to the complainant of Rs. 83,948/-. Now, moot point is whether the complainant had to suffer from pecuniary loss on act upon the wrong advice given by the OP Bank authority which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank.
On perusal of W.V. it appears that the OPs have stated that on request made by the complaint the F.D. A/cs was closed and the payable amount was disbursed after deduction of penal amount for premature encashment
On perusal of the affidavit –in-evidence adduced by the complainant it appears that the complainant has stated that as per RBI Guideline the OP Bank ought to ensure that the depositor i.e. the complainant herein has been made aware of applicable penal rates along with the deposit rates in case of premature withdrawal which is termination of F.D. Contractual Agreement. In support of such contention the complainant annexed RBI Guideline regarding Interest Rates on and Premature withdrawal of Rupee Term Deposits. On perusal of the same it appears that clause 9 which deals with Premature Withdrawal of Term Deposit runs as “The bank will ensure that the depositors are made aware of the applicable penal rate along with the deposit rate. However, the bank at its discretion, may disallow premature withdrawal of large deposits held by entitles other than individuals and Hindu Undivided Families. Bank should, however, notify such deposits of its policy of disallowing premature withdrawal in advance. i.e. at the time of accepting such deposits.”
The complainant has stated that the OP Bank has advised him for premature withdrawal of F.D. amount but on scrutiny of documents on record no documents have been found wherefrom it would have been evident that the OP advised the complainant to encash the FDs prematurely.
However, the complainant by swearing affidavit has alleged that the bank gave him wrong advise and in accordance with that advise he opted for premature withdrawal which cause pecuniary loss to him. On the other hand, the OP Bank on filing written version swearing affidavit has stated that the complainant opted for premature withdrawal of F.D. account of his own and as per his instruction the OP Bank disbursed the payable amount for premature withdrawal of his F.Ds. The situation is the allegation versus the defence, oath –vs.- oath. Admittedly the complainant deposited his original F.D. Certificates to the Bank. It appears from such event that the complainant after being informed by the OP bank regarding penal deduction became intended to withdraw the amount lying with F.Ds as complainant himself has stated in the complaint that he was informed that small amount would be deducted as penalty. The complainant did not mention the rate of penal deduction which was communicated to him by the bank, relaying upon which he was deposited the F.D Certificates.
Under such circumstances, the bank was liable to disburse the amount as he depositor asked the bank to do so. Bank has also been liable to deduct the penal charges.
In such view of the matter we are inclined to hold that the bank has no deficiency in providing service.
The complainant has stated that on 09.06.2015 the OP Bank credited an amount of Rs.23,760/- to his account for wrongful payment of less amount. However, in our view, said incident has no bearing with the present case.
Point Nos. 1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the consumer complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ORDERED
That CC/721/2017 is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
