DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 51 of 9.2.2016

                                      Decided on:                  15.11.2019

1. M/s Navyug Estates, Adjoining Hotel Sunrise, Sirhind Road, Patiala through its partner Sh.Ankur Singla.
2. Sh.Ankur Singla, partner, M/s Navyug Estates, Kothi No.19, Opposite Mandi Board, New Grain Market, Sirhind Road, Patiala and adjoining Hotel Sunrise, Sirhind Road, Patiala ( Phone No.98151-59005)

                                                                   …………...Complainants

                                      Versus

1. UCO Bank, Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal through its Chairman-Cum- Managing Director.
2. Ravi Krishan Takkar, Managing Director Cum CEO, UCO Bank Head Office, 10, BTM Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 West Bengal (

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur,    Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal,         Member       

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Anish Jain,Advocate, counsel for complainants.

                                      Sh.Sanjay Khanna,Advocate,counsel for OPs.           

 ORDER

                                    M.P.SINGH PAHWA,PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by M/s Navyug Estates, through its Partner Ankur Singla (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against UCO Bank and others (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Briefly the case of the complainant is that they had been using services of the OPs for earning livelihood. Complainant have following accounts with the OP Bank.

1. Current Account No.15780200000569 in the name of Navyug Estates, Patiala, since the year 2005.
2. Current Account No. 15780200000570 in the name of Navyug Housing and Construction Co., Patiala ,since the year 2005.
3. Fixed deposit receipt No.FDR No.K 07123800 bearing account No.15780300000988 dated 21.4.2015 for Rs.90,000/-, in the name of Navyug Estates, Patiala, since the year 2005
4. Fixed Deposit receipt No.293883 for Rs.5,68,000/- in the name of M/s Navyug Estates bearing account No.15780210000915 in the name of Navyug Estates Since 2010
5. Fixed Deposit receipt No.C/F/D/02 296266 dated 19.12.2015 for a sum of Rs.5,68,000/- bearing account No.15780310061657 in the name of Navyug Estates, Patiala since 19.12.2015

3. It is pleaded that the complainant was required to furnish bank guarantee of Rs.5,68,000/- to Chief Administrator PUDA-cum-Competent authority. They were having current account with the OPs at its branch with OP No.3 bearing account No.15780200000569.The matter was discussed with the then Branch Manager. Request for issuance of bank guarantee for a sum of Rs.5,68,000/-was given to the OP against security of property. OP issued bank guarantee No.6/2005-2006 dated 21.4.2005 for five years ending on 20.7.2010 on the basis of valuation of property of the complainant which was much more than requirement. FDR No.K 07123800 bearing account No.15780300000988 dated 21.4.2005 for Rs.90,000/- in the name of Navyug Estates, Patiala was obtained by the OP at that time. The said bank guarantee was renewed from time to time.
4. On 27.8.2010 complainant requested OP No.3 to release the property lying as security with them against the bank guarantee.The then manager suggested and requested to make an FDR of the amount of Rs.5,68,000/- and submit the same to them so that the bank guarantee may be continued and property may be released.
5.  The Manager of OP No.3 directed partner of the complainant to write a letter which was in fact dictated by the branch manager UCO Bank. In the said letter he made the complainant to write word call deposit, but meaning of this word was not in the knowledge of the complainant. It was also not explained by the Branch Manager. It was understood by partner of the complainant that it is for terminology of deposit regarding bank guarantee whereas in fact it was FDR deposit which was submitted against bank guarantee as security in the shape of FDR. It was to fetch interest as well.
6. As on early occasion an FDR of Rs.90,000/- was given which is carrying interest. Hence at the instance of the Branch Manager of OP, the partner of the complainant wrote the letter and deposited cash amount of Rs.5,68,000/- in their current account. The bank converted the same into FDR. Receipt No.293883 for Rs.5,68,000/- in the name of M/s Navyug Estates (bearing account No.15780210000915)  Patiala was issued. The original FDR at a glance was shown to the complainant by the bank official where the word ‘Fixed Deposit Receipt’ was written. Complainant was satisfied that the amount is in the form of fixed deposit which would carry usual rate of interest. The original FDR was kept by the Branch Manager, UCO bank with itself as security against bank guarantee. UCO bank did not inform the complainants that the deposit has not been converted into FDR rather it has been deposit in a call deposit which did not carry any interest nor photocopy of the FDR/call deposit receipt was given to the complainant. Even letters of PUDA so submitted by the bank clearly signify only word “bank guarantee”. There was no mention of call deposit having been received from the complainant by the OPs against the said bank guarantee. It was not specified that the amount will not carry any interest and has it been  so told by the OP No.3,the complainants may not have withdrawn their property from OP No.3 so submitted for the purpose of security against the bank guarantee. The OPs have breached the interest of the complainants and committed fraud with them as apparently deposit receipt has been shown to be that of fixed deposit receipt but deposit has been shown in an illegal manner to be that of call deposit, which is not known to common person/customer of bank generally.
7. Moreover call deposits are invited for short periods only or for an unspecified period of time. It has been wrongly submitted by the OPs that the call deposit did not bear any interest. No circular of RBI has been shown in this regard that the call deposit did not bear any interest. In fact definition of call account is an interest bearing transaction account wherein a deposit is placed with bank for an unspecified period of time. In case of bank guarantee, only FDRS are obtained as security or property is taken as security which has not been done in the case of the complainants for the reasons best known to the OP.
8. It has been pleaded that the complainants did not take any step since 2010 till 2015 but when in the month of June/July,2015 they approached OP No.3 for releasing interest on the said FDR accumulated during last five years they were shocked to hear the response of Bank official that the fixed deposit receipt issued do not carry any interest. It is not the fixed deposit receipt and was call deposit receipt and not bearing usual interest
9. Thus on 29.7.2015, complainant wrote letter to OPs for supply of copy of FDR and for intimating maturity value of FD receipt No.293883 of Rs.5,68,000/-.The bank furnished photo copy of receipt .As per photo copy given by the bank it  transpired that the deposit has been wrongly shown to be call deposit allegedly not carrying interest whereas document of receipt is of Fixed Deposit Receipt.
10. The complainants immediately resented and sought clarification which was not redressed in satisfactory manner. They written letters dated 31.7.2015 and 27.9.2015 for payment of due interest but still the due amount of interest was not paid by OP No.3.The copy of the leter was forwarded to Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai which was forwarded to Banking Ombudsman Authority for redressal.During pendency of the proceedings OP No.3 has agreed to compromise the matter and to pay interest @6% per annum instead of 8.50% per annum. The complainants had agreed and the letter dated 26.11.2015 was obtained from the complainants for settlement of dispute amicably on lesser rate of interest but it was intimated that the proposal has not been sanctioned by the Regional Manager, UCO Bank. Thus bank resiled from compromise. Banking Ombudsman Authority, Chandigarh also declined to intervene in the grievance of the complainant unilaterally without giving any opportunity of personal hearing. Without prejudice to the right to claim due rate of interest on deposits, damages on account of Unfair Trade Practice, harassment, fraud, breach of trust, complainants got issued  an FDR receipt dated 19.12.2015 for Rs.5,68,000/- bearing account No.15780310061657 and requested OP to replace the FD receipt No.293883 for Rs.5,68,000/- in the name of M/s Navyug Estates, Patiala bearing account No.15780210000915 lying as security against bank guarantee for Rs.5,68,000/- issued in favor of PUDA, Patiala but OP No.3 is now putting undue pressure on the complainant to sign document for not claiming any interest on FD receipt No.293883 for Rs.5,68,000/- before replacing the FDR receipt No.296266 for a sum of Rs.5,68,000/- in the bank guarantee account. OP No.3 is also not releasing FDR No. K 07 123800 bearing account No.15780300000988 dated 21.4.2005 for Rs.90,000/- with due interest standing in the name of Navyug Estates, Patiala inspite of 100% payment of bank guarantee in the years 2010.
11. It is further alleged that the complainants have also mentioned that the charges imposed by the OPs are excessive than required to be charged. They requested to furnish relevant rules of UCO Bank regarding charges applicable on bank guarantee issued for the relevant period since 2005-06 but they were at fault and have failed to supply the same. They are also liable to be directed to refund excess amount charged from complainants.
12. It is alleged that OP No.3 has grossly contravened,  neglected and ignored the rules and regulations of Banking Regulation Act and instructions of RBI.Their act and conduct  has transpired that they are endeavoring to deprive complainants of the money payable to them.
13. On this background of the facts, the complainants have prayed for following directions to be given to the OPs:

1. To replace FDR receipt No.293883  with FDR receipt No.C/F/D/02 296266 dated 19.12.2015 and also to pay due interest on the said FDR No.293883;
2. To return the original FDR No. K 07 123800 and to make its payment alongwith due interest  ;
3. To supply  relevant rules of UCO bank regarding charges applicable on Bank guarantees issued for the relevant period since 2005-2006 and also to refund excess amount charged from complainant;
4. To furnish copy of rules of Reserve Bank of India with regard to call deposits;
5. To pay Rs.20,000/- as damages on account of harassment, mental agony and legal expenses

Hence this complaint.

14. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply the OPs submitted that as per the pleadings, the complainant is running business under the name of M/s Navyug Estates, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable; no resolution has been placed on file to file the complaint by one partner; therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is denied that the complainant is using the security of the OPs for earning livelihood. Regarding accounts with the OPs as detailed by the complainant, the other party has not denied this fact. It is the case of the OPs that the complainant required to submit bank guarantee to the PUDA of Rs.5,68,000/-.Therefore, bank guarantee of Rs.5,68,000/- was given by the bank. FDR dated 21.4.2005 of Rs.90,000/- was also taken from the complainants. It is denied that on 27.8.2010 complainant requested OP No.3 for releasing the property lying as security or the bank manager suggested to make the FDR of Rs.5,68,000/- in the shape of call deposit. Accordingly the OPs prepared the call deposit of Rs.5,68,000/-.The complainant had every knowledge with regard to call deposit. It is denied that the letter dated 27.8.2010 was written at the instance of OP No.3.
15. It is further asserted that call deposit is always without interest and it has been specifically mentioned that there was no interest in the deposit of Rs.5,68,000/-.The FDR of Rs.90,000/- which was prepared at the instance of the complainant was duly given interest from time to time as per bank rules and regulations. The call deposit of Rs.5,68,000/- has no rate of interest. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to interest on this call deposit/receipt No.293883.
16. It is denied that the OPs have breached the interest of the complainant or have committed fraud with the complainant or illegally shown call deposit
17. It is denied that the call deposits are invested only for short purposes. Complainant himself requested OP to prepare call deposit. Accordingly it was prepared as per rules and regulations. As per OPs, letter dated 31.7.2015 and 27.9.2015 has no relevancy as  the complainant is not entitled to any interest on call deposit
18. It is further pleaded that on 27.12.2012 complainant issued cheque No.266865 dated 27.12.2012 and requested the OPs , “Please issue one call deposit receipt for two years”. Accordingly the call deposit of Rs.5,68,000/- was prepared  for the period from 27.12.2012 to 26.12.2014.The complainant filed complaint before Banking Ombudsman Reserve Bank of India. After due consideration it was rightly rejected by the said authority. The complainant has no right to agitate the matter before this Forum. The complainant challenged the rejection before the competent authority.
19. It is denied that the OP has agreed to compromise the matter and to pay interest @6% per annum instead of 8.50% per annum as alleged.
20. It is further mentioned that the complainant himself wrote letter dated 26.11.2015 and requested OPs to pay interest @6% per annum which was never accepted by the OPs. The complainant wrote the letters to the OPs just to cover up their own wrongs.
21. It is pleaded that the call deposit as well as FDR was issued as bank guarantee to the PUDA. Therefore, there is no question for replacing the call deposit and FDR with new FDR till the amount was cleared as bank guarantee to the PUDA. The complainant is well aware of the procedure for releasing the call deposit as well as FDR for releasing the bank guarantee. Therefore, the fresh bank guarantee dated 19.12.2015 cannot be accepted by the OPs. The allegations for not releasing the FDR dated 21.4.2005 of Rs.90,000/- has also denied.
22. It is further mentioned that FDR is lying as bank guarantee. Therefore, no question arises for releasing the same. All other allegations of the complainant are also denied.
23. Thereafter the OPs raised further objections that the complaint is not maintainable, as per pleadings complaint is liable to be dismissed as it has been filed without any resolution or authority letter; that as per pleadings only Ankur Singla partner of Navyug Estates filed the complaint. No other partner has filed the complaint. No authority letter has been issued by the other partners in favour  of the complainant ; that the complaint is not within limitation. It is false, frivolous within the knowledge of the complainant. It is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs.50,000/-
24. In support of their case, the ld. counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of Ankur Singla, Ex.CA, affidavit of Vinod Aggarwal, Ex.CB, copy of legal notice,Ex.C1, copies of postal receipts, Ex.C2, copy of letter from department of town and country planning,Punjab,Ex.C3, copy of FDR dated 21.4.2005,Ex.C4, copy of covering letter, Ex.C5, copy of FDR dated 19.12.2015, Ex.C6, copies of letters Exs.C7 to C9, copy of bond for extension of bank guarantee, Ex.C10, copies of letters Exs.C11,C12, copy of FDR No.293883,Ex.C13,copies of letters Exs.C14 to C 24, copy of statement of account Ex.C25, copy of application under RTI,Act,Ex.C26, copy of document regarding revised service charges, Ex.C27, copy of circular regarding different schemes, Ex.C28 and closed the evidence.
25. OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Vijay Khanna, Ex.OPA, copy of FDR dated 21.5.2005, Ex.OP1, copy of letter dated 7.8.2010,Ex.OP2, copy of call deposit receipt dated 26.12.2014,Ex.OP3, copy of letter, Ex.OP4, copy of order dated 10.12.2015 of Banking Ombudsman,Ex.OP5, copy of letter regarding replacement of bank guarantee, Ex.OP6,copy of letter dated 7.8.2010, Ex.OP7, copy of statement of account,Ex.OP8, copy of letter dated 2.3.2017,Ex.OP9 and copy of instructions regarding deposit,Ex.OP10.
26. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.
27. The ld. counsel for the parties have reiterated their versions as setup in their respective pleadings and detailed above. The repetition of the same is not considered necessary for the sake of brevity.
28. The OPs have raised objection regarding maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complainant firm is engaged in running a business.
29. The point is whether the matter involved is relating to services or commercial transaction.
30. The complainant has claimed relief regarding FDR/Call Deposit Receipt deposited with the OPs. Therefore, from  the transactions involved in the case, it is apparent that the matter does not relate to any commercial transactions but it relates to banking services which certainly falls within the ambit of this Forum. Therefore, the objection of the OPs regarding maintainability of the complaint is not sustainable.
31. Now coming to the main points. From the reliefs claimed by the complainant it emerges that the main relief claimed by the complainant is that the deposit of Rs.5,68,000/- vide receipt No.293883  is to fetch interest or not.
32. The complainant has admitted that the partners of the firm, mentioned in the application for call deposit receipt but the partner was not explained meaning of the call deposit and he took it synonymous of the FDR.

It is well settled that the documentary evidence has to prevail upon oral evidence. Complainanthimself has brought on record copy of the application, Ex.C11. It is moved by the complainant under the signatures of both the partners. Vide this letter the complainant firm requested for release of the title deed. It was also mentioned that the complainant is depositing Rs.5,68,000/- as call deposit and pledge the same and release the title deed of the property. From the contents of this letter, it emerges that the complainant firm in place of title deed pledged Rs.5,68,000/- as call deposit.

Of course in the complaint, it is pleaded that the Bank Manager directed partner of the firm to write letter which was in fact dictated by the Branch Manager. The name of the partner who scribed the letter is not mentioned. The name of the Bank Manager who dictated the letter is not mentioned. Therefore, these allegations of the complainant are vague and uncertain. No preference can be given to these allegations to the written request made by the complainant under the stamps of the firm and signed by both the partners. When the complainants had themselves requested that they are pledging the amount of Rs.5,68,000/- as call deposit, therefore, the OPs were not to pay any interest on this amount.

The call deposit receipt,Ex.C13 is also relied upon by the complainant. It is categorically mentioned that this amount does not carry any interest. The receipt was got issued on 26.12.2014.The complainant has not challenged this fact till 9.2.2016, the date of filing of this complaint.

Admittedly the complainant also raised matter before Banking Ombudsman. Order of the Banking Ombudsman is also on the record as Ex.C22.The Banking Ombudsman has also observed thatinterest rate payable has not been mentioned on the receipt which would not have been the case if it was an interest bearing deposit. It was also noted by Banking Ombudsman that from the documents shown by bank the complainant himself had requested for issuance of call deposit receipt for two years.

Therefore, the conclusion is that the complainant himself requested for issuance of call deposit, which was not to carry interest. The OPs issued call deposit receipt making it clear that it does not carry any interest. In these circumstances, no deficiency on the part of the OPs can be attributed in this regard.

33. The complainant has also requested for replacing of the FDR No.293883 against bank guarantee dated 21.4.2005 with FDR dated 19.12.2015.

Admittedly this FDR has been replaced and the earlier FDR has been released to the complainant. Of course the complainant has accepted the release without prejudice to the claim of interest but since this FDR was not to carry any interest as such the complainant is not entitled to interest on this FDR already got released.

34. The complainant also got released original FDR dated 21.4.2005 of Rs.90,000/-with due interest.
35. The complainant has prayed for refund of the excess amount charged from the complainant for issuing the bank guarantee.

The complainant has not detailed this fact in the complaint. From the copy of statement of account, Ex.C25, it emerges that the OPs charged bank guarantee charges of Rs.38,343/- on 23.12.2014, Rs.38,343/- on 27.12.2012 and Rs.31,761/- on 19.7.2010.

The OPs have claimed that these amounts were charged as per rules and regulations but the OPs have not produced any rules and regulations or circular to justify these commissions. The complainant has brought on record copy of the circular relating to loans and advances,Ex.C28. As per this circular, the guarantee secured by 100% term deposit including 3^rd party deposits of the bank, the OP has to charge Rs.173/-+ 25% of normal commission but if the bank guarantee is secured by 100% CASA deposit, full commission shall be waived.

From the facts of the case, it is clear that the bank guarantee was secured by 100% of the deposit as the bank guarantee is for Rs.5,68,000/- and the OPs have got FDR of the equal amount. Therefore, as per this circular the full commission was to be waived. OPs have not produced any circular contrary to this circular. Therefore, the commission charged excess on the basis of this circular.

The complainant has claimed refund of the excess charges paid on 19.7.2010 amounting to Rs.31,761/- and Rs.38343/- paid on 27.12.2012.

The complaint was filed on 9.2.2016.Complainant has also placed on record copy of the bank guarantee,Ex.C10 vide which the bank guarantee was extended upto 31.11.2011.The bank guarantee charges are also mentioned as Rs.31761/-.The complainant has not produced subsequent bank guarantee vide which the OPs have charged Rs.31761/- for the year 2014.Both the charges are in the knowledge of the complainant but the complainant has not raised this matter within the period of two years.Therefore, the claim of the complainant relating to excess charges paid on 27.12.2012 and 19.7.2010 is time barred. No relief can be granted qua these charges paid by the complainant.

As the OPs have failed to justify charges of Rs.38.343/- paid on 23.12.2014, therefore, the complainant is held entitled to the refund of this amount.

36. The OPs have also caused delay in release of the FDR. The complainant has also raised this matter in this complaint but the OPs have not expressed readiness to release the earlier CDR of Rs.5,68,000/-, which amounts to deficiency in service.For this deficiency, the complainant is also held entitled compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
37. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.10,000/-as compensation and Rs.10,000/- costs of the litigation. The OPs are also directed to refund the amount of Rs.38,343/- charged excess alongwith interest at the rate admissible on saving bank account from 23.12.2014 till payment.
38.           Compliance of the order be made by the OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
39. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED:15.11.2019     

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President