Complainant Bakhshish Singh  through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to withdraw the amount of FDR alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of due till its realization, in his favour. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for physical harassment and mental agony and litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.           The case of the complainant in brief is that he deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 11.12.2009 which was matured on 11.12.2010. The said FDR was jointly in his name and his wife and the account of the FDR is either or survivor. After the maturity of the FDR, he visited to the opposite party to withdraw the same or to renew and issue renew certificate to him but the opposite party neither  allowed to withdraw  his FDR, nor they renewed the same till today. After maturity of the said FDR, he many times visited and requested to the opposite party to allow him to withdraw his FDR.  He sent a letter dated 11.04.2016 to the opposite party but they are not ready to admit his claim and now a week ago they have refused to admit the claim. He suffered huge loss as he is in dire need of money. The opposite party has confined his FDR without any rhyme and reason. So, there is clear cut deficiency on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3.      Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party  who appeared and filed its written statement taking preliminary objections that the  present complaint is not maintainable in the present Forum and is without any merits and without any cause of action; the complainant has failed to set out any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party;  the present complaint is without any cause of action on the part of the opposite party; the Hon’ble Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint as the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts is barred in these type of matters under Section 55 and Section 82 of the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961 and the complainant has filed a false complaint by misstating the actual facts and has further mislead the Hon’ble Forum and it was submitted that the complainant was the employee of the opposite party bank and posted at Kahnuwan Branch as Branch Manager during the period of  20.11.2003 to 06.12.2004. Earlier the branch of the opposite party bank was being operated manually and during the course of computerization of the bank the computerized balancing of the bank was carried out and during the course when the branch of the opposite party bank was computerized it  came into picture that a fraud of Rs.one crore fifty five lack eighteen thousand three hundred had been committed during the period of 20.11.2003 to 26.06.2008 and some was brought before the head office of the bank on 16.08.2010 and the matter was considered very seriously and the same was put before the board of directors of the Gurdaspur Central Co-Op bank Ltd. and with an immediate effect departmental inquiry was conducted under the supervision of Smt.Kavita Bedi Senior Manager of the Gurdaspur Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. and in her inquiry Smt.Kavita Bedi found that a fraud of Rs.one crore fifty five lack eighteen thousand three hundred was committed in the opposite party bank and taking action on the  report of Smt.Kavita Bedi, Senior Manager, a complaint was moved again the present complainant i.e. Sh.Bakshish Singh and nine other persons before the S.S.P. Gurdaspur and on that complaint a formal F.I.R. was registered with the police station Kahnuwan vide F.I.R. no.05.05.11 U/S 409/201/120B  IPC. The matter is still pending before the court and no final verdict has been given in this case. The amount of all the responsible employees (involved in the Fraud) of the bank involved in the commission of the fraud lying deposited in the Gurdaspur Central Co-Op Bank Ltd. was transferred/withheld in the fraud account under the lien of the Bank. The disputed FDR of the complainant was attached/transferred to the fraud account vide voucher dated 20.08.11. Similarly, the land of the present complaint i.e. Bakhshish Singh was also attached by the court of Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies, Gurdaspur vide its order dated 31.08.2010 and this fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. The same facts have been repeated on merits and lastly the complaint has been prayed to be dismissed.

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, along with the other documents exhibited as Ex C2 to Ex C6 and closed the evidence.

5.        On the other hand, Sh.Kamaldeep, Officer Scale 1 of opposite party tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 alogwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-4 and closed the evidence.

6.       We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the participating litigants along with the scope of ‘adverse inference’ that may be discretionarily drawn on account of the non-production of some documents vital for the present adjudication in spite of the opportunity made available for the purpose. We find that the complainant has successfully proved (Ex.C5) on record the issuance of the Fixed Deposit Receipt # 6373 dated 11.12.2009 for   Rs.1.0 Lac by the opposite party Bank (in the joint names with his wife) falling due on 11.12.2010 and the OP Bank’s subsequent refusal to pay its maturity proceeds to him.

7.       We find that the OP Bank has repeatedly clarified its position that the requisite maturity proceeds were appropriated towards recovery due to the complainant in a fraud case that he had committed while in the service of the OP Bank. However, the OP Bank has failed to produce any cogent evidence to prove that the said FDR deposit comprised of the alleged fraud proceeds and/ or its maturity proceeds have been frozen/barred for payment at the orders of the competent authority of the Bank and/or other executive/judicial office. The OP Bank has of course produced the copy of the orders Ex.OP2 of the Asstt. Registrar freezing the proceeds of FDR 161/10 of the Bhattian Branch of the OP Bank whereas the FDR in question is numbered 128/16 and is issued by the Kahnuwan Branch of the OP Bank. However, it shall be the OP Bank’s own prerogative as to how to manage/subside the presently ‘cropped-up’ situation but that certainly entitles the present complainant to ‘one’ favorable award under the statutory provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986.       

8.       In the light of the all above, we find that the OP Bank has indeed bruised the consumer rights of the present complainant and that lines it up for an adverse award under the applicable statute. We, therefore, partly allow the present complaint and thus ORDER the OP Bank to pay the said FDR maturity proceeds with up to date interest at the applicable interest rate to the complainant besides to pay him Rs.5,000/- as cost and compensation within 30 days of the receipt of copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract additional interest @ 9% PA from the date of the orders till actual payment.

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

                 (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                President   

Announced:                                                       (Jagdeep Kaur)

July, 21 2017                                                           Member

*MK*