Punjab

Sangrur

CC/200/2022

Anil Kalra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Punjab State Co-operative Agriculture Development Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Yogeshwar Bhadwaj

14 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                         Complaint No. CC/200/2022

 Instituted on:   21.02.2022

                                                                         Decided on:     14.08.2024

Anil Kalra aged about 49 years son of Jiwan Dass Kalra R/O House No.239/B, Ward No.17, Sunam, District Sangrur, Punjab.

                                                         …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.             The Punjab State Coop. Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd. (through Branch Manager) Sunam, Distt. Sangrur, Punjab.

2.             The Punjab State Coop. Agri. Dev. Bank Ltd. (through Managing Director) Sector 17-B, Bank Square, SCO 53-54, Chandigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

Complaint  under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

 

For the complainant  :       Shri Yogeshwar Bhardwaj, Adv.

For Opp.parties                :       Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.

 

Quorum                                          

 

Jot Naranjan Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Kanwaljeet Singh, Member

 

ORDER

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

1.             Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties  on the ground that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in the shape of FDR with the OP number 1  and the LF number of fixed deposit receipt is 137. Further case of complainant is that he was in urgent need of money on 13.01.2022, as such he made a written request to the OP for premature withdrawal of all the funds from fixed deposit, but the request of the complainant was rejected by the OPs on the irrational ground stating that no one can be allowed to withdraw money from fixed deposit prematurely.   On the other hand, the complainant has averred in the complaint that there is no such rule which prohibits premature withdrawal of the money from the fixed deposit. Further case of complainant is that due to non payment  by the OPs the complainant suffered huge monetary loss and by this way the OPs are deficient in service.  Nothing was done by the OPs despite serving of legal notice dated 21.1.2022 upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to permit the complainant to withdraw premature amount from the fixed deposit and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has concealed material facts from this Commission, that the complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, it is admitted that the complainant availed the services of the OPs by investing the amount in the shape of FDR. It is also admitted that on 13.01.2022 the complainant made a request for premature withdrawal of all the funds from the fixed deposit, but the request of complainant could not be entertained because of bank’s decision to release only matured FDRs due to crunch of funds.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied and lastly the OPs have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of fixed deposit receipt, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OPs/1 affidavit, Ex.OP/2 copy of cheque, ExsOPs/3 copy of register and Ex.OPs/4 copy of account statement and closed evidence.

4.             We have gone through the pleadings put in by the parties alongwith supporting documents with their valuable assistance. 

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the complainant invested an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with the OPs in the shape of FDR on 24.06.2021 which was repayable on maturity on 24.6.2022 and an amount of Rs.5,28,594/- was payable. But the grievance of complainant is that he was in the dire need of the money on 13.01.2022 therefore he applied to the OPs for premature release of the FDR amount, but the OPs failed to release the amount which is said to be deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the OPs on 21.01.2022, copy of which on record is Ex.C-2,  but nothing was done.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended that the payment of Rs.5,28,594/- has been released to the complainant on maturity of the FDR on 27.06.2022, which is evident from the copy of cheque Ex.OPs/2, which is not disputed by the complainant. Further Ex.OP/3 is the copy of transfer voucher showing release of FDR payment to the complainant on 27.6.2022 after maturity. Ex.OP/4 is the copy of bank account statement, which shows that an amount of Rs.5,28,594/- was paid to the complainant Anil Kalra on 28.6.2022.  All the evidence clearly shows that the maturity amount of Rs.5,28,594/- has already been paid to the complainant on 28.06.2022, but the fact remains that the payment was not released to the complainant despite his request dated 13.01.2022 on the ground that there is paucity of funds with the OPs, which we are of the view that it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  The complainant has nothing mentioned in the complaint about the monetary loss which was caused to him due to non release of the amount of FDR prematurely.  But the fact remains that the Ops are deficient in service by not releasing the amount of FDR when the complainant sought the same on 13.01.2022 from the OPs for release of the amount. As such, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

6.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.  This order be complied with within a period of sixty days of receipt of copy of this order.

7.             The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.

8.             Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

                        Pronounced.

 

14.08.2024.

 

           (Kanwaljeet Singh)  (Sarita Garg) (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

                  Member                       Member                  President