Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/995/2012

Jai Gopal S/o Banarsi Dass - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Yamuna Nagar Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Parveen Sharma

19 Jun 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 995 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 18.09.2012

                                                                                    Date of decision: 19.06.2017.

 

Jai Gopal son of Shri Banarsi Dass, since deceased now represented by his LRs:-

1. Gian Devi widow of Jai Gopal.
2. Anil Kumar son,
3. Satish Kumar son

of Jai Gopal son of Shri Banarsi Dass, residents of village Gumthala Rao, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Yamuna Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Branch Office Sandhali, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. The Yamuna Nagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. having its Head office at Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar Road, Near Sant Nischal Singh Public School, Yamuna Nagar through its Managing Director/Official Incharge/Manager.

 

                                                                                      …Respondents.  

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                        SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER

 

 

Present:           Shri Parveen Sharma, Advocate for complainant

                       Shri DS Kamboj, Advocate for OPs.

 

ORDER (Ashok Kumar Garg, President)

 

1.                     The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondent (hereinafter referred as OPs).

2.                     Brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant Jai Gopal (now deceased) retired from his service on 31.12.2010 and on retirement he was given various retirement benefits in the shape of money and on the request of the Manager of the Bank i.e. OP No.1, out of the amount received by the complainant at the time of retirement, he deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- with the OP No.1 under fixed deposit scheme for a period of 15 months and a certificate to this effect bearing No.057110 dated 10.01.2011 was issued by the OP No.1 in favour of the complainant. The FDR in question was to be matured on 11.04.2012 having maturity amount of Rs.3,35,303/-. After date of maturity i.e. 11.04.2012, the complainant visited the Branch Office of OP No.1 and requested them to encash/ release the maturity amount of the FDR but the official of the OP No.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the OP No.1 after expiry of 4 months on false excuse i.e. on 03.08.2012, complainant was asked to submit the original certificate  of the FDR, So that the same could be encashed in his favour. Upon which the complainant submitted the original certificate with the manager of OP No.1 bank. Thereafter, he was told by the OP No.1 that the amount of the FDR after encashment has been transferred to the saving account-73 of the complainant with the same Bank. After that the complainant visited the OP Bank and asked the statement of account of the saving account but the official of the OP Bank refused to issue the same. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and lastly prayed for directing the OPs to release the amount of maturity amount of the FDR i.e. Rs.3,35,303/- along with interest and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement jointly taking some preliminary objection such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant has no cause of action against the OPs; complainant has concealed the true and material facts, the true facts are that complainant was employee of Sandhali Primary Agriculture Cooperative Society Ltd. and was retired from his service with the society on 31.12.2010 after completing his service. At the time of retirement the complainant was given totally retirement benefits which includes CPF of Rs.1,77,706/-  leave encashment  of Rs.90,440/-  and gratuity of Rs.68,544/-  i.e. total amounting Rs.3,36,690/-. Thereafter, a routine Audit was conducted by Sub Inspector of audit department and a report (Annexure R-2) was submitted by that Auditor and as per the Auditor report, the amount which was to be given to the complainant was Rs.1,77,706/- as CPF  Rs.56,000/- as leave encashment benefits and Rs.67200/- as gratuity, total amounting Rs.3,09,606/- thus in this way an amount of Rs.35784/- was disbursed in excess to the complainant at the time of his retirement on 31.12.2010 and now after adding the interest of Rs.3488/- over the said amount, an amount of Rs.39272/-  was outstanding against the complainant. It has been further mentioned that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as FDR/MMC for 15 months with the OPs and on this amount, the amount of Rs.35,303/- is accumulated as interested upto 19.04.2012, the OPs transferred, said amount of Rs.2,96,303/- in his saving account after deducting the amount of Rs.39,272/-  which was paid in excess and was outstanding against the complainant and on merit all the contents of the complaint were controverted and reiterated the stand taken into the preliminary objection and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint as there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.                     In support of his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Satish Kumar son of the complainant Jai Gopal as Annexure CW/A, photocopy of FDR/MMC as Annexure C-1, photocopy of passbook of saving account as Annexure C-2, copy of death certificate of Shri Jai Gopal as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Shri Parveen Kumar, Branch Manager as Annexure RW/A, account statement of saving account bearing No.73 as Annexure R-1, photocopy of audit report as Annexure R-2, photocopy of FDR/MMC as Annexure R-3, photocopy of transfer voucher as Annexure R-4, copy of certificate as Annexure R-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant retired on 31.12.2010 from the OPs Bank. It is also not disputed that the complainant Shri Jai Gopal deposited Rs.3,00,000/- with the OP No.1 Bank through FDR/MMC certificate bearing No.057110 on dated 10.1.2011 with the maturity date dated 11.04.2012 which is duly evident from the copy of FDR/MMC (Annexure C-1/R-3).

8.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that after maturity date of the FDR/MMC in question when the complainant visited the official of the OPs Bank and requested to release the amount of the FDR/MMC then the official of the OPs linger on the matter one pretext or the other which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. But this plea of the complainant is not tenable as from the perusal of account statement of saving account No.73 (Annexure R-1) it is duly evident that an amount of Rs.2,96,250/- out of maturity amount of FDR i.e. Rs.3,35,303/- was transferred on 19.04.2012 i.e. within a period of 8 days from the date of maturity of the FDR, in the account of the complainant. This fact has been concealed by the complainant in his complaint. It is not the case of the complainant that OPs has not credited the said amount in his account as neither any rejoinder of the complaint has been placed on file  by the complainant nor any cogent evidence to rebut the same has been filed. Even the complainant has admitted in Para No.4 of the complaint that “The complainant took the request of the respondent on the face value and submitted the original certificate with the Manager of the respondent No.1. Thereafter, he was told by the respondent No.1 that amount of FDR after encashment has been transferred to the saving account No.73 of the complainant with the same bank.”.

9.                     Further, it is also not the case of the complainant that the audit has wrongly and illegally calculated the amount on account of leave encashment as Rs.56,000/- instead of Rs.90,440/- and Rs.67,200/- instead of Rs.68,544/- on account of gratuity i.e. an amount of Rs.35,784/- and was not paid in excess to the complainant by the OPs. Whereas on the other hand, the OPs Bank has placed on file a detailed Audit Report (Annexure R-2), from which it is duly proved that an amount of Rs.35,784/- was paid in excess to the complainant by the OPs. So we are of the view that grievance of the complaint that the OPs Bank has not released the entire amount of FDR/MMC on its maturity have no weightage i.e. is not tenable. So, we are of the considered view that on this account complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

10.                   Although the OPs Bank has refunded/released the amount of Rs.2,96,250/- against the maturity amount of the FDR of Rs.3,35,303/- on 19.04.2012 by transferring the same in the saving account bearing No.73 of the complainant after deducting the amount paid in excess i.e. Rs.35,784/- on account of leave encashment as well as gratuity. Even then it is not the case of the OPBank that before deducting the said amount i.e. Rs.35,784/- any notice or opportunity of personal hearing was given to the complainant as no such documents has been placed on file by the OP Bank. Meaning thereby that OP Bank deducted the said amount from the maturity amount of the FDR in arbitrarily manner without following the proper procedure which constitute the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs Bank. So we are of the considered view that on this account complainant is entitled to get some relief.

11.                   Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct the OPs Bank to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment and Rs.3,300/- as litigation expenses in equal share in the name of LRs of the deceased Jai Gopal. Order be complied within a period of 30 days after preparation of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 19.06.2017.     

                                                                   (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                    PRESIDENT, DCDRF,

                                                                   YAMUNANAGAR AT JAGADHRI

 

 

 

      (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)            (S.C.SHARMA)

       MEMBER                                            MEMBER