Present : Sri A.K. Das, President
Sri L.K. Banerjee, Member
Order no. 27 dt. 15.11.07
The complainant in this consumer complaint has claimed Rs.1,96,303.47 from o.p. Bank as they have released the complainant’s FDR with above less amount alleging deficiency in service on their part for withholding the amount.
Profile of the petitioner’s grievance is that they had following FDR with o.p.
- FDR dt.14.6.2000 for Rs.2,50,378/- to be matured on 14.6.01 with an amount Rs.2,75,000/- (annex-A).
- FDR dt.6.11.2000 for Rs.3,00,000/- to be matured on 6.11.01 with an amount Rs.3,31,952/- (annex-B).
- FDR dt.6.11.2000 for Rs.15,50,000/- to be matured on 6.11.01 with an amount Rs.17,15,087/- (annex-C).
The petitioner has deposited above FDR against lien to Bank as margin money for three Bank Guarantee issued by the bank in favour of Prasar Bharati.
After expiry of the period of bank guarantee on May 2001, Nov.2001, respectively petitioner had requested, annex-G and H, to release the same.
The o.p. bank did not take any steps. The petitioner had submitted his claim through solicitor, annex-I.
The o.p. bank had replied, annex-J, with reference to annex-I.
Even thereafter petitioner had persuaded it, annex-K, requesting o.p. to release the FDR without result.
Then petitioner had moved banking ombudsmen for relief. An award dt.26.8.02 had been made in favour of petitioner directing o.p. bank to release the bank guarantee , annex-L. Ombudsmen also held that the petitioner’s further claim for interest on the bank guarantee values had not been considered to be appropriate as there was no involvement of fund in such activities.
Thereafter petitioner on 12.9.02, annex-M, advised o.p. bank to renew the F.D. for further period of one year. The petitioner again requested the o.p. bank, annex-N, for renewal of the F.D. as they wrongfully held it on 21.10.07, annex-O.
The o.p. intimated the petitioner that they had allowed interest at he savings bank account rate @ 4% p.a. from expiry of the F.D. till date of renewal.
The petitioner alleged that o.p. did not renew the F.D. from the date of maturity of the F.D. as they claimed in their letter 12.9.02, annex-M instead of o.p. bank had renewed it from 13.9.02. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to interest as was contracted for at the time of taking FDR.
The petitioner then took up the matter with the o.p. bank, annex-P, but they did not get desire result. Finally they/petitioner requested o.p. bank on 12.11.02, annex-Q, to encash the FDR.
The petitioner claimed interest at the agreed rate as per their calculation in para-23 of the consumer complaint. They already received the cheques, annex-R, after maturity with interest as contracted till maturity @ 4% p.a. from date of maturity till over due period.
Under this circumstances petitioner have demanded short payment in terms of their prayer.
The contesting o.p. have contended in their w/v that the complainant had filed complaint before banking ombudsmen on 11.11.02 against the o.p. The said authority had rejected the complaint, annex-A, on 4.3.03 with observation as o.p. bank has returned the securities and paid interest on the matured term deposit in terms of RBI extent guidelines and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. bank. The petitioner did disclose said fact at the time of filing the consumer of complaint.
During pendency of the bank guarantee o.p. had received a letter on 4.6.01, annex-B, from Prasar Bharati with an intimation that till date total dues of the complainant came to Rs.62,90,000/- which was supposed to clear by the complainant. Prasar Bharati did not receive from them and complainant had discontinued the supply of films. Prasar Bharati requested o.p. bank to not to release the securities of he said bank guarantee without prior clearance from them.
The o.p. informed on 6.6.01, annex-C, to complainant to sort out the matter with Prasar Bharati. But complainant did not do that. The o.p. bank again received a letter, annex-D, dt.2.1.02 from Prasar Bharati with information that complainant had an outstanding amount Rs.62.90 lacs to them. They also requested o.p. bank to liquidate thesaid amount of bank guarantee by issuing bankers cheque in their favour.
The complainant also had signed and executed counter guarantee in favour of o.p. bank wherein it was started “ We also undertake not to claim of return of document/release of securities till bank guarantee, annex-E, in original is returned to o.p. duly discharged by the beneficiary Prasar Bharati and the original bank guarantee were not received by them from the beneficiary.
The o.p. bank had complied the order dt.26.8.02, annex-H, of banking ombudsmen.
The complainant did not give any instruction for renewal of F.D at the time of expiry of F.D.
The o.p. bank renewed the F.D. receipt @ 4% p.a. till 12.9.02 and thereafter renewed with effect from 13.9.02 @ 8% p.a. for the period of one year as per complainant’s instruction dt.12.9.02.
The o.p. bank had acted in accordance with banking norms. They were not guilty of deficiency in service.
The issue “whether complainant is entitled to claimed interest and consequential relief for harassment” has came out of the contentions of the complainant and o.p.
It is undisputed that o.p. under instruction of complainant had issued three bank guarantee in favour of Prasar Bharati expiring on 5.11.01, 5.11.01 and 18.5.01. The complainant had signed and executed counter guarantee in favour of o.p. bank wherein it was stated that “we also undertake not to claim of return of the documents/release of securities till bank guarantee in original is returned to o.p. duly discharged by the beneficiary Prasar Bharati”.
Prasar Bharati requested o.p. bank on 4.6.01 and 2.1.02 not to release the securities as complainant had defaulted to make payment an amount Rs.64,90,000/- and to liquidate the said amount in their favour.
The complainant had moved Bankers Ombudsman claiming return of a sum of Rs.20,000/- held by o.p. bank with interest @ 21% p.a. from 6.11.01 the date of bank guarantee expired and Rs.5 lacks damage.
Banking Ombudsman directed on 26.8.02 o.p. bank to take immediate action from resolution of complainant’s grievances and a confirmation on the compliance of the decision would be communicated to Ombudsman within seven days upon delivery of the securities from o.p. and no other action would be taken from then and the complainant’s case would be treated as settled. They rejected the interest and damages claimed by the complainant. In the said order it was stated that “with regard to the complainants further claim for the interest on the bank guarantee values had not been considered to be appropriate as there was no involvement of funds in such activities’.
The o.p. bank vide their letter dt.21.10.02 intimated the complainant the circular no.CIR/GEN No.081 dt.14.5.02 as per RBI guideline wherein it has been adopted and decided that “Deposit will be renewed on receipt of written consent from the depositor and branches will pay S/B interest (currently @ 4% p.a.) at simple interest for the overdue period to the depositor from the date of maturity till closer.
The o.p. in terms of order of ombudsman dt.26.8.02 complied and communicated it to the office of Banking Ombudsman.
The complainant gave written consent on 12.9.02 for renewal of F.D. accordingly o.p. renewed the same with effect from 13.9.02 allowing interest @ 4% p.a. till 12.9.02 in terms of RBI guideline.
The complainant again moved Banking Ombudsman on 11.11.02 claiming for interest and Rs.5 lacks towards harassment. They had rejected the complaint of the petition on 4.3.03 with observation that the o.p. bank has returned the securities and paid interest on the matured term deposit as RBI guideline. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. bank.
The complainant again wrote on 12.11.02 to o.p. bank for encashment of the F.D.R. The o.p. bank had complied it in terms of RBI guideline.
Now the complainant have moved this forum on 29.4.03 with same contention without sufficient and acceptable grounds and withholding the order of the Ombudsman dt.4.3.03.
In view of the admitted position petitioner have no other new materials to the satisfaction of the forum warranting their claim. So the present consumer complaint is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed. Hence, the consumer complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
_________________ _________________
Member President
