That the complainant on 02/12/1997 opened P.P.F. Account in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Purulia bearing A/C No.-113774480452 and date of maturity of that account was on 01/04/2013.

That, the complainant submitted application on 01/04/2013 to the OP no 1 for extension of the period of said P.P.F Account for further period which was accepted by the OP no 2.

That, on 25/11/2013 the complainant deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- to the OP no 2 through Cheque bearing no 486940 dated 25/11/2013 drawn on U.B.I. Purulia Branch for crediting the said amount in the said P.P.F. account of the Complainant.

That, on 02/04/2014 the complainant sent her representative to the state Bank of India, Main Branch, Purulia for the purpose to know the present status of the P.P.F. Account and after updating the P.P.F. Account book it has been noticed by the complainant that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- deposited by the complainant through Cheque has not been credited in the P.P.F. Account of the complainant. Again on 07/04/2014 the complainant sent her representative to the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Purulia to enquire about the non-deposit of the amount stated above in her P.P.F. Account but no satisfactory reply was given by the staff of the OP no 2, rather handed over a Banker’s Cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

On 10/04/2014 the complainant through e-mail sent a complaint to the OP no 2 and also requested him to credit the amount in her said P.P.F. Account.

 The complainant as per advice of the Bank Authority deposited the Banker’s Cheque no-937603 dated 17/04/2014 and also compelled to deposit Rs. 500/- as penalty for regularizing the P.P.F. Account. Subsequently the O.P. through a banker’s Cheque No. 939258 dated 9.6.14 returned the amount of Rs. 500/- to the complainant. That the Cheque bearing no. 486940 dated 25/11/2013 of Rs. 1,00,000/- was encashed by the O.P. bank on 27/11/2013 and PPF A/c of the complainant was regularized by the O.P. bank on 9/6/2014 and despite of several request made by the complainant such PPF A/c was  not regularized and pending for long period for which the complainant lost interest on that amount for the period from 27/11/2013 to 9/6/2014, as well as also suffered a loss of Income Tax rebate @ 20%  on Rs. 1,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 20,000/- for that financial year.

That there is latches and /or negligence on the part of the O.P. for non crediting the amount of Rs. 1,00,000 in the PPF A/c of the complainant in time which constitute deficiency in service and for that the complainant has been harassed and suffered mental pain. As such the complainant filed the instant petition for appropriate relief.

The O.P. has been contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no cause of action for filing the instant complain petition. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and as such the O.P. prays for dismissal of the case. Hence the case.

Now the moot points are whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reason:

          Admittedly, the complainant opened PPF A/c in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Purulia on 2/12/97 and the date of maturity of that account was on 2/12/12. The complainant deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- to the O.P. No. 2 through Cheque on 25/11/13 for its credit to aforesaid PPF Account. But the Bank/O.P. did not credit the amount to the said PPF A/c of the complainant because the account was matured on 31/3/13 at the expiry of the financial year as per rule. As such the O.P. bank prepared one banker’s Cheque bearing No. 000702 on 28/11/13 and the concerned officer informed the customer personally on the next day but the complainant sent one Mr. Santosh Kumar duly authorized representative on 7/4/14 to receive the bankers Cheque and the O.P. handed over the same. On 16/4/14 representative of the customer informed verbally that the account has been extended and presented the bankers Cheque for credit but in fact, the complainant did not submit any application for extension of the PPF Account and bank finding no other alternative prepared another banker’s Cheque bearing no. 937603 dated 17/4/14 in lieu of previous bankers Cheque bearing no. 000702 dated 28/11/13 and the dispatch the same by post on 17/4/14 in the address available in the account but same was returned undelivered on 21/4/14 with postal remark “not known retuned to sender’.

That the complainant on 29/5/14 deposited Rs.500/- and Rs. 99,500/- on 9/6/14 for extension of the said matured PPF A/c. From the materials it appears that in response to the email dated 10/4/14 the bank by e mail dated 22//4/14 adviced the customer to extend the PPF A/c for further period of five years. It further appears that after such correspondence the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was accepted by the customer and the same was deposited in the said PPF A/c.

          On perusal of the records it appears that the bank was incapable of accepting Rs. 1,00,000/- from the customer and to credit the same in the relevant PPF account but eventually  the bank did so. In this back ground it is accepted by us that in view of the email reply dated 22/4/14 the PPF A/c was extended for further five years, no matters the form ‘H’ as is required for the purpose of such extension is not forthcoming to us. Had it not been so there could be no scope for the Bank to receive and credit the said amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- in the said account specially when such amount was refused to be credited on the ground of maturity of the account after expiry of the initially 15 years.

          A PPF A/c holder knows the date of maturity of his/her account as soon as he/she opens the same. It is he/she to decide either to receive the maturity value on its initial maturity of 15 years or to get it extended for further periods of five years. No authority either in the form of law/rules/regulation/decision of the superior Forum/Court has been placed before us to suggest that onus lies upon the bankers to inform its customer that the PPF A/c has attained maturity after expiry of initial period of 15 years and after the expiry of further extended period. Had it been so we could infer negligence on the part of the O.P. bank in the given fact of the present case.

          On the other hand we find that the O.P. accepted the amount from its customer (Complainant) with a view to credit the same in the relevant account but could not do so because the account has already attained maturity by that time and the account has not been renewed/extended for further period at the instance of the account holder.

          The O.P. bank did not sit idle but returned the amount through Bankers Cheque which took certain time because of due observance of legal and technical formalities about which, the complainant does not appear to have any grievance. Thereafter, as it is found, there were communication between the parties through representative and e-mails and the Bank once again accepted the amount given by the complainant and duly credited the same in that account. In this regard we have already pointed out in a preceding paragraph that the account must have been extended for further period though prayer for such extension supported by form ‘H’ is not forthcoming. This observation has been supported by the fact that had the account not been extended after due observance of legal formalities the O.P.-bank could not have any scope to credit the same amount in the said account.

          It has been argued before us that the account was extended for a further period with retrospective effect i.e. since the date it initially got matured and so the money subsequently credited in the said account should fetch benefit to the account holder specially in respect of rebate obtainable from the payable amount of income tax. But we find that the account got maturity on 31.3.13 (so there was no scope to credit the amount unless the account was further extended). The bankers Cheque was sent back but returned. The complainant finally deposited Rs. 500/- on 29/5/14 and Rs. 99,500/- on 9/6/14 which were duly credited in the account as the account was extended for further period. Regard being had to the action and inaction attributable to the respective parties we are of the considered view that whatever was legally required to be done and possible to be done on the part of the O.P.-Bank, have been done. On the other hand, the complainant is found  quite indifferent in the matter of looking after her PPF A/c and even did not care to keep in mind when the same was to be matured and really has been matured. Complainant’s attempt to deposit certain amount in the account without looking into it whether the account was still operative seems to be and instance of negligence on her part. We find no instance of negligence  and/ or failure on the part of the O.P. Bank to render due service with customer in the given facts and circumstances of the case as has been detailed out, on the basis of the pleadings and documents placed before us by the respective parties.

On Perusal of the material on record and written argument advanced by both sides before us we are constrained to hold that the complainant is not entitled to any of the relief she desire to have. Hence,

ORDERED

That the consumer complainant no 22 of 2014 be and the same is dismissed against O.Ps on contest without cost.

Let a copy of this judgement be supplied to the parties free of charge.