Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/488/2018

Rakesh Prashar - Complainant(s)

Versus

UCO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Mashwinder Singh Adv.

04 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	488 of 2018
Date  of  Institution	:	30.08.2018
Date   of   Decision	:	04.04.2019

 

 

 

 

Rakesh Prashar, H.No.1030, Sector 37, Chandigarh    

 

             ……..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  UCO Bank, Head Office 10, B.T.M., Sarni, Calcutta 700001, through its Managing Director/Chairman.

2]  UCO Bank, Sector 22-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

 

 ………. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA    PRESIDING MEMBER

            SH.RAVINDER SINGH     MEMBER

 

Argued By:       Sh.Mashwinder Singh, Adv. for complainant.

     Sh.Vikash Goel, Advocate for OPs.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

                                The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant made an FDR No.2/2000 with OP Bank in the year 2000, which unfortunately was misplaced.  The matter was reported to the Opposite Party, who vide letter dated 3.6.2017 informed the complainant that the said FDR had matured many years back and requested to get the FDR amount encashed. Accordingly, the complainant was paid an amount of Rs.31,724/- by the Opposite Party vide draft dated 13.6.2017 along with interest @4% p.a. as applicable on savings bank account.  On further inquiry, it revealed that the complainant has a fixed deposit No.2/2000 made on 7.4.2000 for a period of 3 years carrying interest @10.50% p.a. and same was matured on 7.4.2003 for the maturity amount of Rs.20,336/- and after the said date of maturity i.e. 7.4.2003 to 30.5.2017 the bank paid interest @4% p.a. as applicable on savings bank rate.  It is stated that the amount remained deposited with the bank from 7.4.2000 to 13.6.2017 in the shape of FDR and should have been automatically renewed on 7.4.2003 at the interest as applicable at that time.  A legal notice was also sent to the Opposite Parties, but to no avail.  Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that as per the bank policy, any depositor in the year 2000 was required to get renewed the fixed deposit within 14 days and in case the period accedes 14 days then the interest on the fixed deposit becomes payable as saving bank rates.  It is stated that the complainant after the date of maturity never approached the OPs either for renewal of the fixed deposit or to get the maturity amount which fell due on 7.4.2003. Accordingly, after the maturity of fixed deposit, the complainant has been paid interest after the maturity at the savings bank rate.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record.

 

5]       It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that the complainant made an FDR No.2/2000 with OP Bank in the year 2000 to be matured on 7.4.2003. It is disputed that in the year 2017 the opposite party bank vide draft No.422186 paid FDR amount of ₹31,724 giving interest at the rate of 4% p.a. only i.e. as applicable in savings bank account and not paid the interest as originally mentioned in the FDR.

 

6]       It is admitted by the opposite parties that FDR No.2/2000 was made on 07/04/2000 carrying interest at the rate of 10.50% per annum and the same was to mature on 07/04/2003 with maturity amount of ₹ 20,326.

 

7]       It is submitted on behalf of the Opposite Parties that the complainant never approached the OP Bank to collect the maturity value of the FDR and also no request was made to renew the fixed deposit within 14 days from the date of maturity, as was required. Further submitted that it is only in the year 2017, the opposite parties informed the complainant about the maturity of the FDR and requested the complainant to get the same renewed or encashed. Clarified further that on execution of the requisite documents, the amount of ₹31,724/- after applying interest @4% per annum on the maturity amount of ₹20,336/-, has been paid by the OP Bank vide Banker’s Cheque No.422186 dated 13/06/2017 to the complainant.

 

8]       We are of the concerted opinion that no deficiency in service is attributed on the part of the OP Bank as the complainant himself neglected to renew or get the said FDR encashed on its maturity in the year 2003 and when appraised in the year 2017 by the bank then come forward and withdrew the amount. The complainant has not placed on record any document showing that the opposite party bank was ever instructed or given mandate by him regarding auto renewal of the FDR in question. In the absence of any mandate, it was not incumbent on the part of the OP bank to auto renew the FDR and thus, the OP bank rightly paid the maturity amount with interest @4% per annum i.e. as applicable on savings bank account.  Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

 

9]      In view of the above discussion & findings, the present compliant is dismissed being devoid of any merit.  No order as to costs.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

4^th April, 2019                        

                                                                                                Sd/-  

                                                                    (PRITI MALHOTRA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER