Late Dr Raj Kumar Sharma, during his life-time had been an account holder (consumer) of the OP1 Bank and had also placed Rs.1,08,000/- on 17.09.1993 in an one-year term-deposit account @ 10% quarterly compounded interest with his wife Smt. Sudershana Sharma, as joint holder. They however could not collect its maturity proceeds of Rs.1,19,200/- on 17.09.1994 as they had misplaced the related Deposit Receipt maybe in clumsiness of ripening-age. The complainant had visited the OP1 Branch many a times and had also approached the OP2 Manager to get the duplicate Receipt for claiming its maturity proceeds but failed. Even, the related complaint to Banking Ombudsman failed to get the desired result. 'Cause of action' had accrued qua the OP banks' refusal causing mental agony/physical harassment exhibiting deficiency in service on the OP part hence the present complaint seeking directives for release of FDR proceeds with interest @ 16% PA besides Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation, all in the interest of justice. 

2.        The complainant had annexed his affidavit Ex.C1 with the present complaint along with other supporting documents exhibited as: Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 - their respective complaints to the Banking Ombudsman and also to the OP Bank's General Manager besides Ex.C4 – copy of the fixed deposit receipt.

3.        The OP Bank upon summoning, appeared through its counsel who had filed the written statement comprised of its preliminary as well as other objections (on merits) as: The complaint is not maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer and also the same is barred by limitation. On merits, the OP bank has stated that the complainant need to prove the purchase of the FDR as the Bank has no records of its issuance etc. And, if the complainant had got issued the FDR he must have got its maturity proceeds through issuance of its duplicate copy, a long time back. Further, the complainant has appeared after 23 years of the date of maturity and that causes a shadow of doubt upon the complainant whose intention seems malafide as there being no records of F.D. issuance etc. All other contents of the complaint have been denied by the OP Bank for similarly placed reasons. The OP bank has produced but the lone affidavit Ex.OP1 of Naresh Kumar the Br. Manager affirming the contents of the written statement and deposing that the records are destroyed after 10 years in compliance to the bank's instructions. Lastly, the complaint being addressed devoid of all merit has been sought to be dismissed with costs.

4.        It shall be pertinent here to mention that Complainant Dr. Raj Kumar Sharma had somehow expired on 21.05.2018 during the very trial of the complaint. Upon his demise, his surviving widow Smt. Sudershan Sharma filed an application on 17.12.2018 for getting the deceased's Legal Heirs impleaded as his L.Rs. (Legal Representatives) in the on-going proceedings. However, the applicant widow too expired on 24.11.2019 during the pend-ency of her said application; and the surviving legal heirs of the deceased (two sons and one daughter) filed one similar application on 20.09.2021 for impleading them (the surviving legal-heirs) as the L.Rs. - legal-representatives of both the deceased, who had been their parents.

5.        Pertinently, both the above applications were disposed of on 08.07.2022 as the first application of 17.12.2018 was withdrawn by the learned counsel for the complainant, having turned infructuous at the death of its applicant and the other one of 20.09.2021 being allowed in favor of its applicant(s), the legal-heirs. 

6.       We have examined the available documents/evidence on the records so as to statutorily interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference on account of some documents ignored to be produced/not produced by the contesting litigants against the back-drop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for their respective litigants.

7.        We find that the present dispute has arisen on account of the impugned ‘refusal’ of the OP Bank to entertain the complainant's claim to maturity proceeds of their fixed deposit account, the Deposit-Receipt of which had been allegedly lost/misplaced by the elderly couple, since both expired during the pend-ency of the complaint and their legal-heirs (two sons and a daughter) allowed to step into their shoes as their L.Rs.

8.       We further find that the OP Bank has founded their 'refusal' to consider or even to entertain the complainants' claim to the maturity-proceeds of the lost FDR upon the hereunder enumerated objections (being reproduced in their own words followed by our observations during the course of consideration etc):

            1.        The complainant is not consumer of the answering opposite party.

            2.        The alleged FD is a forged and fabricated document as there is no record or account of the complainant available with the                opposite party and if he proves the issuance of alleged FD in his favor, he had encashed the same long time ago.

            3.       The complaint is not maintainable as barred by limitation.           

            4.        Moreover, as per the instructions, the bank has to destroy the records after 10 years.

9.        The o. n. p. (onus of proof) of the OP banks' own objections as at # 1) and 2) above, lay heavily upon them only but they have failed to produce any evidence at all except the lone affidavit of the Branch Manager sans any document produced in evidence and thus the therein contained pleadings amass no evidentiary value at all and amount to mere bald statements. Whereas, the complainant has produced copy of the F.D. Receipt (Ex.C4) and that has neither been contested nor disowned as having not issued by the Bank and thus it stands proved that the complainant had been the statutory 'consumer' of the OP Bank and the F.D. Receipt has been genuine and bonafide document issued in lieu of having received a deposit of Rs.1,08,000/- on 17.09.1993 by the OP Bank.

10.      The next objection as at 3) that the complaint is barred by limitation has been totally unfounded as we observe that the 'cause of action' had arisen in year 1994 at the maturity of the F.D on 17.09.1994 and had been continuing as the recurring one throughout till it got recurred/re-incurred in the year 2017 and the complaint stood filed in the year 2017, itself. However, if the OP Banks' plea pertains to limitation-bar upon the maturity proceeds of the F.D., they may refer to that the unclaimed maturity proceeds of fixed deposits with the Bank are at par with Trust Money - 'funds' given in trust and are not to be treated at par with bad-debts and or overdue-credits etc., the amounts placed in fixed deposits with the Bank are at par with trust Money and limitation laws are not applicable to these. Moreover, such-like overdue/unclaimed deposits are to be reported and deposited with the RBI as per its notified instructions.

11.      Further, as per the RBI guidelines, Unclaimed deposits are commonly defined as those deposits which are lying in accounts not operated for a period of 10 or more years. Section 26 of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 requires banks to submit to RBI information about these accounts within 30 days after each calendar year ends.

12.      The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) classifies a deposit as unclaimed when a customer doesn't make any transaction in the account for 10 years or more. These amounts will be now transferred by banks to Depositor Education and Awareness Fund (DEAF) maintained by RBI.  

13.      The last but not the least the objection as at 4) pertains to destroying of the records at the instructions of the bank. It shall be pertinent here to understand that records pertaining to the paid deposits/settled accounts are instructed to be destroyed after 10 years but not those pertaining to the unclaimed deposits that are to be placed with RBI after 10 years as per the established procedure and the OP Bank need to have given an affidavit by one of its senior officers that the specific deposit has been verified and was not placed with the RBI as an unclaimed deposit but no such document has been placed on record and instead the OP bank has been repeatedly making bald statements of 'no records' sans reference to the established procedure by virtue of RBI notifications on the subject.       

14.      We further find that the OP Bank has not placed forth any cogent or otherwise any document in evidence to support their otherwise seemingly bald pleadings. We also observe that the OP Bank has not produced any document in evidence and/or in support of the established procedure qua the RBI guidelines pertaining to the unclaimed overdue deposits. We further observe that the OP Bank's other trivial objections are ambiguous and no more than petty queries in non-fidelity/ignorance and have been well responded by the complainant in their rejoinder arguments/pleadings. The OP Bank must realize that their resolves to the claims are open to judicial review and need be determined with application of mind not in an arbitrary manner but need to explain the logic as to how the same have been reached.

15.      In the light of the all above, we set aside the OP Bank's impugned refusal to accept the complainants’ F.D Maturity-claim being arbitrary (and in contravention to laws of natural justice) and amounting to ‘unfair trade practice/deficiency in service’ etc.

16.     Thus, we partly allow this complaint and ORDER the OP Bank to pay the impugned ‘maturity-proceeds' of the F.D, in full, with interest at the Savings Bank Rates as applicable for the intervening periods w e from the date of maturity (17.09.1994) till paid in full besides to pay Rs.15,000/- in lump sum as compensation cum cost of litigation to the complainant(s) within 45 days of receipt of the copy of these orders, otherwise the entire awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 3% PA form the date of the complaint till actually paid.

17.      The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

18.      Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.                                                           

                                                             (Naveen Puri)

                                                                 President.

ANNOUNCED:                                  (R.S.Sukhija)

OCT. 06, 2022.                                            Member.

YP.