Orissa

Jajapur

CC/77/2019

Rabindranath Sahoo. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,Syndicate Bank,Chandikhole. - Opp.Party(s)

Laxmidhar Nayak.

16 Oct 2020

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                        

                                              Dated the 16 TH day of October ,2020.

                                                      C.C.Case No.77 of 2019

Rabindranath Sahoo ,S/OLate Brajabandhu Sahoo  

Vill . Balarampur ,P.O/P.S .Kujanga  

Dist.- Jagatsinghpur .

At Present: Chandikhole

P.O. Sunguda,P.S. Badachana , Dt. Jajpur

                                                                            …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       

                   (Versus)

The Branch Manager , Syndicate Bank , Chandikhole ,At.Chandikhole

P.O.Sunguda , Dt. Jajpur.

                                                                                                               ……………..Opp.Parties.                                                                                                                                            

For the Complainant:                                Sri L.D.Nayak, Advocate .

For the Opp.Parties  :                               Sri P.K.Kar, Sri H.K.Pradhan , Advocates.                                                                                                   

                                                                                                          Date of order:  16.10.2020

SHRI JIBAN BALLAV DAS , PRESIDENT .                                                 .

            Deficiency in banking service is the grievance of the petitioner.

                The fact as per complaint petition in short is that the petitioner deposited an  amount of Rs8,000/- on dt.23.6.16 on fixed deposit scheme before the O.p . The  O.P  issued a bond bearing A/C No.8051437000134011 and regd. No.9019 and nominated on dt. 27.6.2015 and issued the same to the petitioner under PIGMY  ULKAS CASH CERTIFICATE ( COMP) 41 months one day .The maturity  date  of deposit  is 24.11.18. Hence the maturity amount comes upon Rs.10,489.48p/- When the matured of the fixed bond on dt.24.11.18 the petitioner went to the bank (O.P) to produce the fixed bond for matured amount but the O.P  avoided  to pay the matured amount Thereafter the petitioner put the grievance  before the authority  of the O.P  for  payment of the matured  amount. Accordingly finding no other alternative way the petitioner issued a lawyer notice by regd post on dt.15.3.19 to take necessary action  for payment of matured amount within 15 days after receipt of the notice  but the O.P after receipt  the said notice on dt.15.3.19 neither gave any reply nor complied  the notice which is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on his part . For this act of the O.P, the petitioner sustained mental agony and monetary loss due to negligence and carelessness of O.P .Accordingly finding no  other alternative the petitioner filed the dispute in  this commission with the prayer to direct the o.p to pay the matured amount along with award compensation of  Rs10,000/-  for mental agony and  unfair trade practice and deficiency of service of the O.P

                After receipt of notice  the O.P  appeared through their learned advocate  and subsequently filed the written version taking the stand that :

                The case filed by the petitioner is not maintainable in the eye of law. The cause  of action filed by the complaint is bad in nature against this O.P . The prayer prayed by the petitioner is not maintainable in natural justice. The O.p stated in the written version that the petitioner deposit certificates has already been matured on 24.11.2018 . When the petitioner went to the Bank of the O.p and asked for his maturity amount, the O.P was avoided  to the petitioner to pay the same. The petitioner has presented the above term deposit certificate for encashment but the O.p avoided paying the same to the petitioner. The petitioner has not  mentioned how much times, when and on which date he came to the Bank(O.P) for his maturity amount.  The petitioner did not give any written statement/ application to the bank  about his maturation amount. The Bank could not decide whether it continue or close.  The petitioner has  filed this petition  after limitation of time because the pleader notice sent  by the O.P on 15.03.2019  but the petitioner filed this case on 27.08.2019 . Hence, the time for filing this case has already been lapsed as per law.

                On the date of hearing we heard the argument from the learned advocate of   the petitioner  . After perusal of the record and documents in details it is undisputed fact that the petitioner is a  fixed deposit holder   of Rs.8,000/- before the O.P  on 23.6.2015  bearing A/C No.8051437000134011  and the period is  fixed  for  41 months one day . The matured dated of fixed deposit was on 24.11.2018  and the matured amount was  Rs. 10,489.48/-    as mentioned in the fixed deposit bond . The petitioner claimed that the O.P played   hide and seek game for payment of the matured amount and did not take any step after receiving the lawyer notice. On the other hand the O.P  took the stand that “ The petitioner has not  mentioned in the complaint petition how much times , when  and which date he came to the bank (O.P  for payment of maturity  amount .  Further stated that the petitioner did not give any written statement/ application to the bank about the maturation amount and the bank could not decide whether the fixed deposit is continued or closed .The O.P  also taken the point of limitation for filing of the present dispute.

                On the objection cited above we are inclined to hold that the fixed deposit was matured on 24.11.18  and the present dispute was filed on 27.8.19 . Hence there is no limitation arise for filing of the present dispute and the dispute is not barred by limitation  as per statutory provision of  C.P. Act 2019,  the dispute can be filed   within  the period of 2 years from the date of cause of  action arises.

                The next point comes for  consideration that  the O.P  taken the stand that the petitioner did not give any  written statement /application to the bank (O.P)  whether the fixed deposit is continued or closed .On the other hand the petitioner  has sent  the lawyer notice regarding his grievance  to the O.P on dt. 15.3.19 and the  O.P  received the same on dt.18.3.19 . In the lawyer notice the petitioner has  written his grievance for payment of the matured amount of the fixed bond but after receipt of the lawyer notice  the O.P  neither give any reply nor comply the notice. Accordingly the stand taken by the o.p that the petitioner did not inform him about either closed  of the fixed bond or continued the same is not sustainable as per law  and also supported by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in (2013-(1) CPR-456-N.C,    Wherein it is held that :

” non reply of lawyer notice  may draw adverse inference  “.

 Hence the O.P  has  committed gross  deficiency of service  and unfair trade practice  for non payment of the maturity amount .

Hence this order

The dispute is allowed against the O.P on contest . The O.P is directed to pay the matured  amount  along  with up to date fixed deposit interest till the date of payment is made along with compensation of Rs 5,000 /- ( five  thousand ) within one month  after receipt of this order, failing  which the petitioner can take steps as per law.

 

This order is pronounced in the open commission on this the 16th day of October,2020. under our hand and seal of the Commission.