Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/1451

Jaspreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Oriental Bank Of Commerce - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Kumar Bokolia

26 Feb 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                             First Appeal No.1451 OF 2012

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 26.10.2012  

                                                          Date of Decision :  26.02.2015

 

1.       Jaspreet Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh son of Kartar Singh resident      of Village Lakha, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

2.       Shingara Singh son of Teja Singh son of Kehar Singh C/o          Namdhariya Di Aata Chakki resident of Gehal, Tehsil and District   Barnala

 

                                                                                                                                                          …..Appellants/complainants

         

                                      Versus

1.       Oriental Bank of Commerce, CN-395, Branch Bhilla, District      Barnala.

2.       Head Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Harsha Bhawan, E Block,    Cannaught Place, New Delhi.

3.       Divisional Office, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Improvement Trust       Building, Patiala.

                                                                                                                                                 ….Respondents/Opposite parties

         

First Appeal against order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barnala.

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.  

Present:-

 

          For the appellants            :         Sh.S.K Bokolia, Advocate

          For the respondents        :         None

 

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                           

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           The appellants (the complainants in the complaint) have directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 25.09.2012 of District Forum Barnala, dismissing the complaint of the complainant now appellants. The instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainants now appellants.

2.      The complainants have filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that complainant purchased 200 units @ Rs.1000/- each of total amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 19.11.2001 from OP No.1 Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Bhilla, District Barnala. The complainant paid sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to OP No.1 through its Manager, who assured the complainant that above units would mature on 19.11.2011 and the maturity value thereof per unit will be Rs.3081/- at the time of maturity of the units. Then Manager of OP No.1 issued a voucher-cum-slip bearing no.039426/25 dated 19.11.2001 bearing A/c No.SDB 28101 under his signatures showing maturity value as Rs.3081/- and total amount of maturity is recorded as Rs.6,16,200/-. The Manager of OP No.1 also assured the complainant to pay Rs.6,16,200/- by OP No.1 at the time of the maturity of the units.  That, when the 200 units of the complainant matured on 19.11.2011, the complainant approached OP No.1 on 21.11.2011 as Sunday intervening in between on 20.11.2011. The complainant asked the OP No.1 through its Manager to release the amount of Rs.6,16,200/- in favour of the complainants, but the Manager of OP No.1 replied that he could not release the amount of Rs.6,16,200/- in favour of the complainant and after doing the calculation, the amount of Rs.4,58,081/- was to  be released by OP No.1. That the complainants are entitled to Rs.6,16,200/- and not Rs.4,58,081/-, as calculated by OP No.1. A protest letter dated 21.11.2011 was also sent to OP No.1 by the complainant regarding withholding the balance amount of Rs.1,58,119/-.. The complainants have filed this complaint against the OPs directing them to release the balance amount of Rs.1,58,119/- along with interest from 21.11.2011 till its actual payment and to pay Rs.1,30,000/- as compensation for mental harassment,  besides costs of litigations Rs.10,000/-

3.      Upon notice, OPs filed written version raising legal objections that complainants have not locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint. That the present complaint is frivolous, vexatious and misconceived. It was further pleaded by OPs that subject matter in dispute is outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. On merits, it was pleaded by the OPs that complainant purchased 200 units on 19.11.2011, but it was never assured to complainant to pay maturity value of the said 200 units @ Rs.3081/- at the time of time of maturity. It was further averred that it was only clerical mistake regarding the maturity value of Rs.6,16,200/- and maturity of each unit as Rs.3081/- . The maturity value of the said units comes to the tune of Rs.4,75,270.62 only. Ops controverted the other averments of the complaint and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence voucher Ex.C-1, copy of protest application dated 21.11.2011 Ex.C-2, copy of pass book Ex.C-3, copy of notice Ex.C-4, postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-7, postal acknowledgements Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-9, affidavit of Jaspreet Kaur Ex.C-10, affidavit of Balwinder Singh Ex.C-11, affidavit of Shingara Singh Ex.C-12. As against it, OPs tendered evidence copy of reply to legal notice Ex.R-1,  postal receipt as Ex.R-2, copy of circular Ex.R-3, copy of circular Ex.R-4, affidavit of Parveen Kumar as Ex.R-5. On conclusion of the evidence and arguments, The District Forum, Barnala dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of impugned order dated 25.09.2012 under appeal in this case. Dissatisfied with the order dated 25.09.2012 of the District Forum Barnala, the complainants now appellants have preferred this appeal against the same.  

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the complainants now appellants and have also examined the record of the case as none appeared on behalf of OPs now respondents in this appeal at the time of arguments.      

6.      We proceed to determine the controversy on the basis of its merit with reference to the pleadings and evidence on record. Undisputedly, complainant purchased 200 units from OP No.1 on 19.11.2011. The complainant  alleged the maturity value of each unit as 3081/- and thereby, the total maturity value of all the units as             Rs. 6,16,200/-. On the other hand, the plea of the OPs in this case is that inadvertently it was recorded that the maturity value  per units is 3081 and total maturity value of all units is Rs.6,16,200/-. That it is due to clerical error or inadvertent mistake, whereas the total maturity value of all units comes to Rs.4,58,081/- only.

7.      We have to refer to evidence on the record with the able assistance of counsel for the appellants. The sheet-anchor of the case of the complainant Ex.C-1 is photocopy of slip voucher on the record in the first leaf, the maturity value of the each unit as Rs.3081/- and total unit Rs.6,16,200/- on the over leaf thereof. With regard to file payment of maturity, the received amount by the complainant is Rs.4,58,081/- . The protest petition of the complainant is Ex.C-2 dated 21.11.2011 on the record. Ex.C-3 is the loan statement of the complainant. Registered notice to OPs by complainant is Ex.C-4 and postal receipts Ex.C-5 to Ex.C-9 on the record. Ex.C-10 is affidavit of the complainant about it. Ex.C-11 is affidavit of Balwinder Singh, Ex.C-12 is affidavit of Shingara Singh. In all above-referred affidavits, it has been reiterated on oath that the maturity value of the unit of all units was Rs.6,16,200/-. That OPs have wrongly deducted the balance amount by paying the amount of Rs.4,58,081/-only to the complainant. In rebuttal of it, OPs relied upon reply Ex.R-1 sent by them to the legal notice of the complainant. They have stated in their reply to legal notice of the complainant that rate of interest under Suvidha Deposit Scheme on 19.11.2001  was Rs.8.75%. That at the time of purchase of 200 units, the complainant was specifically told with regard to rate of interest was 8.75% per annum and complainant agreed to it.  It is replied in this reply to legal notice by OPs that amount of Rs.6,16,200/- is due to sheer clerical error only, which confers no legal right on the complainant. Ex.R-3 is document circular no.HD/ACT/19/2001-2002/1210 dated 25.10.2001 to the effect that rate of interest on Domestic NRE and NRNR Term were last revised w.e.f 15.10.2001 and interest rate for domestic term deposit for three years and above 8.75. As per this circular issued by General Manager (Accounts). Ex.R-4 is launching of Suvidha Deposit Scheme. Affidavit of Parveen Kumar Manager of OBC, OP No.1 on the record is to the effect that the rate of interest under Suvidha Deposit Scheme is 8.75% per annum, vide circular Ex.R-4. He further submitted that maturity value of said units  comes to Rs.4,75,270.62 paise  only and not Rs.6,16,200/-, as pleaded by the complainant. It was denied that the OPs were to pay the total maturity amount of Rs.6,16,200/- to the complainant.

8.      From appraisal of above evidence on the record and hearing  the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, we find that in the circular Ex.R-3,  the rate of interest under domestic deposit of Suvidha Deposit Scheme is 8.75% per annum only. It is not disputed by counsel for appellant that if rate of interest is calculated @ 8.75% per annum, then the maturity value does not comes to Rs.6,16,200/- as pleaded by the complainant. Merely by clerical error recorded on the voucher slip Ex.C-1, we do not think that any legal right is conferred on the complainant to receive this amount. This is only inadvertent error on the part of the bank, which is also against the circular of the bank Ex.R-3. Consequently, District Forum rightly came to the conclusion in this case that no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been proved by the complainant. The District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum, so as to take a different view therefrom in this appeal. Order of the District Forum is affirmed in this appeal.

9       As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed by upholding the order of the District Forum under appeal in this case.

10     Arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.02.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

11.     The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                                   (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)

                                                                          MEMBER

 

February, 26  2015.                                                                 

(ravi)