Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/843/2016

Rajinder & Co. Engineer and Contractor - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Field General Manager, Central Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shailendra Sharma

03 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/843/2016
Date of Institution	:	21/09/2016
Date of Decision	:	03/05/2018

 

Rajinder & Co., Engineer and Contractor r/o 1051, Sector 2, Panchkula through its Proprietor, Sh. Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Jyoti Prashad.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     The Field General Manager, Central Bank of India, Bank Square Building, Bank Square, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

2.     The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Sector 15, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                

                    

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Shailendra Sharma, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Ravi Sharma, Counsel for OPs.

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         In brief, the allegations are, complainant is a contractor firm engaged in implementation of various contracts. Maintained, on 24.10.2002, complainant got prepared one Fixed Deposit (FD) of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of Principal Controller Defence Accounts, Western Command, Sector 9, Chandigarh from OP-2 for one year and the rate of interest was 7.5% p.a.  The FD was pledged as security with the said Principal Controller Defence Accounts.  In the month of July, 2016, the said Principal Controller sent the FDR in question for renewal to Central Bank of India and the same was renewed for six months and the interest calculated @ 6% w.e.f. 23.10.2003 to June 2016 was credited in the savings account of the complainant. Alleged, as per convention and rules. FD was supposed to be renewed automatically every year and the prevalent interest applicable on one year FD was to be calculated and disbursed to complainant. Despite correspondence, prayer of the complainant was not acceded to.  Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for a direction to the OPs to pay interest at the prevalent rate on the fixed deposits alongwith compensation and litigation charges.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their reply and inter alia raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the complaint, estoppel as the FDR was not renewed after one year from the date of issuance.  As such, interest of saving rate as per instructions was given. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Replication was filed and allegations made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.  After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.         Per pleadings of the parties, admitted facts are, on 24.10.2002, complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the FD carrying interest  @7.5% per annum. This FD was pledged with the Principal Controller Defence Accounts, Western Command, Sector 9, Chandigarh.  Thereafter in July, 2016, this FD was sent to the OPs for renewal and then interest was calculated at the saving bank rate of 6% for the period from 23.10.2003.
7.         Per pleadings of the parties and affidavits filed in support thereof, it is not the case, complainant had instructed the OPs for the withdrawal of the amount or converting into saving bank rate of interest. Therefore, in this situation, renewal of the FD on expiry of the initial one year deposit i.e. 23.10.2003 and every year thereafter was automatic.  The rate of interest ought to have been calculated on prevailing rate as applicable to FDs of one year from to time. There were implied instructions for the renewal of the FD automatically. As such, there was no justification with the OPs to award only the saving bank rate of interest to the complainant. The reply furnished by the OPs does not cut any ice on legal and equitable basis also. 
8.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. To pay interest on the FDR in question at the rate applicable to fixed deposits for one year w.e.f. 23.10.2003 onwards after adjusting the amount already paid.
2. To pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment caused;
3. To pay to the complainant Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation.

9.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
03/05/2018	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President