Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/308/2022

P.Ramakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

TN Transport Development - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

25 May 2023

ORDER

                                                      Date of Complaint Filed: 20.07.2022

                                                      Date of Reservation     : 02.05.2023

                                                      Date of Order              : 25.05.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT: TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                      : PRESIDENT

                     THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,     :  MEMBER  I 

                     THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA., : MEMBER II

               

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.308/2022

THURSDAY,THE 25^thDAY OF MAY 2023

P.Ramakrishnan,

Flat No.4B, D. No.42/45,

Kannappa Nagar, 2^nd Main Road,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.                                        …Complainant.

..Vs..

Tamilnadu Transport Development,

Finance Corpn. Ltd, Tamilnadu,

Tourism Complex, 4^th Floor,

No.2, Wallajah Road,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                    .. Opposite party.

                                                               

* * * * *

Counsel for the Complainant      :   Party in person

Counsel for the Opposite Party  :    M/s. P. Kannan Kumar

 

On perusal of records and having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Party, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru. T.R. Sivakumhar., B.A., B.L.,

 

(i)  The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and prays to renew the FDRs bearing Nos.C302240,C302239,C302302, C302241 & C302293 with retrospective effect crediting arrears of interest in his S.B. A/cs, as the respective F.D.Rs deposit amount was only with the Opposite Party, even after the date of maturity and utilised the said deposit amounts for their business and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental tension and agony along with cost.

I.  The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

1.     The Complainant submitted that five F.D.R bearing Nos. A375851 for Rs.15,00,000/-, A375849 for Rs.14,00,000/-, A378090 for Rs.80,000/-, A375850 for Rs.50,000/-, A376334 for Rs.50,000/-, which got matured on 21.03.2020, 21.03.2020, 06.06.2020, 16.04.2020 & 12.04.2020, respectively were presented for renewal, the first 4 FDRs on 03.09.2021 and the last FDR on 09.09.2021, bearing New FDR Nos.C302240,C302239,C302302, C302241 &C302293, respectively. The Complainant was told that since the FDRs were presented one year after the maturity date the said F.D.Rs. could be renewed only with effect from the date of presentation and not with retrospective effect.

2.     He has sent a letter dated 25.01.2022 to the Opposite Party requesting for renewing the aforesaid FDRs with retrospective effect for which he had not received any reply till date. He had posted a similar letter to the Manager, Development Corporation Ltd, for renewal of FDRs filed one year after the date of maturity, he had received a reply and the same was filed. He had submitted that some banks like SBI have auto renewal facility and also Finance Companies like Sundaram Finance and Sundaram Home Finance renew F.D.Rs. presented even one year after due date. As even after the maturity date i.e., from 21.03.2020, 21.03.2020, 06.06.2020, 16.04.2020 &12.04.2020, respectively, till the date of renewal ie., on 03.09.2021 & 09.09.2021 the Opposite Party was utilising the said deposit amounts for their business, hence the Opposite Party has to be directed to credit the interest arrears with retrospective effect with compensation for his mental tension and agony. Hence the complaint.

II. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

3.     The Opposite Party had submitted that the Complainant had made the following fixed deposit in the Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd along with Mrs. Sarada Ganaga Rajah. The particulars of which were furnished hereunder:

S. No.	Date of Deposit	Deposit Amount	Date of Maturity	Date of Renewed application Tapal received	Renewal date	FDR No
1	21.03.2017	1400000	21.03.2020	03.09.2021	03.09.2021	A375849
2	21.03.2017	1500000	21.03.2020	03.09.2021	03.09.2021	A375851
3	12.04.2017	50000	12.04.2020	03.09.2021	03.09.2021	A3776333
4	06.06.2017 24.03.2017	50000	24.03.2020	03.09.2021	03.09.2021	A378090 A375850
5	12.04.2017	50000	12.04.2020	09.09.2021	09.09.2021	A376334

 

4.     The above fixed deposits were matured in the above mentioned dates and the Complainant had sent a letter dated 11.12.2018 and informed them that the above Mrs Sarada Ganaga Rajah who is his sister died on 05.11.2018. Further the death Certificate of Mrs. Sarada Ganaga Rajah was also produced by him, based on which his name has been included as depositor. As the said FDRs were matured as mentioned above, they had sent letter to the Complainant along with application for renewal of deposit, two months prior to the date of the maturity, but the depositor/ Complainant did not either sent the original FDRs with proper signature for renewal nor refund, inspite of having sent renewal intimation letter in advance to the depositor, following the procedures not only to the present Complainant/ Depositor but to all the depositors duly communicating in advance along with renewal application, ie., two months prior to the date of maturity. Further the above fixed deposit period was only for three years thereafter it is left to the choice of the depositor for renewal or for refund. In the present case, the renewal application was submitted by the Complainant, only after about 1 year from the date of maturity though prior intimation was sent by them to the Complainant along with application of renewal.

5.     Hence they have not committed any error as alleged by the Complainant. Hence as per their terms and conditions the Complainant is not entitled any interest for the interregnum period of non-renewal period. The Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation under Refund/Renewal of Deposit, they have not permitted any interest if renewal request is received after one year from the date of maturity, such renewal would be done from the date of receipt of application at the rate of interest as applicable on that day.

6.     The Complainant has made application for renewal of the above deposits and the same was received on 03.09.2021 & 09.09.2021 and on the very same day the deposits were renewed by applying the above terms and conditions, hence there was no deviation or error on their part and they have acted upon adhering as per their Terms and Conditions as well as to their Rules and Regulations. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

III. The Complainant has filed his proof affidavit, in support of his claim in the complaint and has filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A16. The opposite party had submitted its proof affidavit and Ex.B1 to Ex.B2 were marked on their side.  On both sides written arguments were filed.

IV.  Points for Consideration:-

 

1.Whether there is any Unfair trade practice and/or deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

 

2.Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

 

3. To what other relief, the Complainant is entitled to?

 

Point No.1 :.

7.     It is an undisputed fact that originally the Complainant had certain Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs) in his name and he has been appointed as nominee in the Fixed Deposit made by his sister, namely, Sarada Ganga Rajah. After the death of the said Sarada Ganga Rajah, on receipt of a letter dated 12.11.2018 from the Complainant, the Fixed deposit held in the name of the said Sarada Ganga Rajah, the name of the Complainant was made as a depositor. It is also not in dispute that the FDRs bearing Nos.A375851 for Rs.15,00,000/-, A375849 for Rs.14,00,000/-, A378090 for Rs.80,000/-, A375850 for Rs.50,000/-, A376334 for Rs.50,000/-, which got matured on 21.03.2020, 21.03.2020, 06.06.2020, 16.04.2020 & 12.04.2020, respectively were renewed bearing New FDR Nos.C302240,C302239,C302302, C302241 & C302293, respectively, the first 4 FDRs were renewed on 03.09.2021 and the last FDR was renewed on 09.09.2021.

8.     The disputed fact of the Complainant is that he has to be paid with the arrears of interest for his above mentioned FDRs from its original date of maturity till the date of renewal though his FDRs were renewed after one year from the date of maturity.

9.     The contentions of the Complainant are that he was told that as his FDRs were presented one year after the maturity date, hence the said F.D.Rs. could be renewed only with effect from the date of presentation and not with retrospective effect. Further contended that when some of the banks like SBI and other financial institutions like Sundaram Finance renews the fixed deposits automatically after the maturity date and provides interest immediately with applicable interest after the maturity date, whereas the Opposite Party inspite of having held his amounts in the said FDRs even after the maturity date till the date of renewal which was renewed after one year from the date of maturity, the arrears of interest for the said one year period to be given credit in the said FDRs and the same to be paid to the Complainant.

10.    The contentions of the Opposite Party that following the procedures they have intimated the Complainant before the maturity of the said FDRs, in advance with renewal application, as the Complainant had not submitted the original FDRs with his signature in the renewal forms in time, i.e, before its original maturity date and had submitted the Original FDRs for renewal only after a period of one year, the Complainant is entitled for interest as applicable on the date of renewal. Hence they have not committed any error or mistake and it is only the Complainant who had acted negligently in presenting the renewal of his FDRs after a period of one year from the original date of maturity. Further contended that their terms and conditions are very clear about Refund and Renewal of the Fixed Deposits, following the same the Complainant was informed about the interest that are applicable on his FDRs presented for renewal after a period of one year from the original date of maturity. Hence the claim of the Complainant that some of the banks and other financial institutions make auto renewal of the fixed deposit are not at all relevant to the present case. They had never caused any mental tension or agony to the Complainant.  

11.    On discussion made and on perusal of records, it is an admitted fact that the subject FDRs of the Complainant were presented for renewal after a period of one year from the original date of maturity of the subject FDRs, as the FDRs bearing Nos.A375851 for Rs.15,00,000/-, A375849 for Rs.14,00,000/-, A378090 for Rs.80,000/-, A375850 for Rs.50,000/-, A376334 for Rs.50,000/-, were matured on 21.03.2020, 21.03.2020, 06.06.2020, 16.04.2020 & 12.04.2020, respectively and were presented for renewal on 03.09.2021 & 09.09.2021 and the same were renewed vide FDR Nos.C302240,C302239,C302302,C302241 & C302293, respectively. And it is also an admitted fact that the Complainant was informed about the interest is applicable only from the date of presentation, as the FDRs were presented after a period of one year from the date of maturity, who had sent a Letter on 25.01.2022 to the Opposite Party as per Ex.A-1, seeking interest with retrospective effect from the date of maturity and on receipt of Ex.A-1, the Opposite Party had sent a Reply dated 14.02.2022, Ex.A-3, explaining the Complainant with relevant terms and conditions for renewal of the FDRs on receipt/request of renewal application after three months from the date of maturity and the rate of interest applicable for such renewals, whereas in the instant case, the FDRs were presented for renewals after a period of one year from the date of maturity. Hence, the contentions of the Opposite Party placing reliance upon the terms and conditions mentioned in Condition No.7 (iii) under Belated Renewals, “If renewal request is received after one year from the date off maturity, renewal will be done from the date of receipt of application at the rate of interest as applicable on that day”, is applicable to the instant case and the claim of the Complainant to credit arrears of interest from the date of maturity till the date of renewal is not legally sustainable.

12.    Further the Contention of the Complainant with regard to Auto renewal of Fixed deposit made by some of the banks like State Bank of India and Financial Institutions like Sundaram Finance and Sundaram Home Finance, by placing his Fixed deposits with said bank and financial institutions marked as Exs.A-4 to 10, Exs.A-11, 12, 15 & 16 and Exs.A-13 & 14, respectively, except the State Bank of India Auto renewal option was not found in other documents marked by the Complainant, further the interest rate in the Fixed deposits made with SBI varies periodically. It is also to be noted that as per Ex.A-11, 12, 15 & 16, only on receipt of the term deposit, the deposit was duly renewed on the date of its receipt. Further as per Ex.A-13 & A-14, it was made clear to renew the deposit on or before maturity to ensure continuous interest payment. Thus, it would be clear that every bank and financial institutions have their own terms and conditions which is also governed by Reserve Bank of India and the customers are bound by the terms and conditions of the Banks, Financial Institutions. As mentioned the Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Opposite Party and hence the contention of the Complainant that the Opposite Party should Auto renew the subject FDRs of the Complainant is not legally sustainable. Therefore, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party following the terms and conditions had renewed the subject FDRs of the Complainant at the interest rate applicable on the date of receipt of request of the subject FDRs for renewal and there is no unfair trade practice and/or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

 

Point Nos. 2 and 3:-

13.    As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Complainant, the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint and also not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.  

In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	25.01.2022	Letter by Complainant to Opposite Party.
Ex.A2		Proof of delivery
Ex.A3	14.02.2022	Letter from Tamilnadu Power Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd to Complainant
Ex.A4	19.04.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A5	27.04.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A6	27.04.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A7	05.07.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A8	05.07.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A9	05.07.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A10	05.07.2022	FDR from S.B.I (auto renewal)
Ex.A11	09.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Finance
Ex.A12	09.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Finance
Ex.A13	04.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Home Finance Limited
Ex.A14	04.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Home Finance Limited
Ex.A15	03.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Finance Limited
Ex.A16	03.09.2021	FDR from Sundaram Finance Limited

 

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1		Terms and conditions of the Tamil Nadu Transport Development Finance Corporation
Ex.B2		Application for Renewal of Deposit sent by the Opposite Party

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT