Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/94/2021

Ram Dulari W/o Ram parkash - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ujjivan Small Finance Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Bhim Singh

04 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA

 

                                                                    Complaint No.:    94 of 2021.

                                                                   Date of institution:         22.03.2021.

                                                                   Date of decision: 04.07.2022

 

Ram Dulari w/o Shri Ram Parkash Madan, now r/o H.No.302, Sector-13, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                                      Versus

 

1. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, Kurukshetra Branch, Partap Colony, Opp. Hotel Pearl Marc, near Rudara Cinema, Railway Road, Kurukshetra through its Authorized Signatory.
2. Ujjivan Small Finance Bank Ltd., Registered Office Plot No.2364/8, Khampur Raya Village Shadi Kampur, Main Patel Road, New Delhi-110008, through its Authorized Person.

                                                                                      ...Respondents.

 

CORAM:   NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.    

                   NEELAM, MEMBER.

                   ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL, MEMBER.           

 

Present:       Shri Bhim Singh, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri Harvinder Singh, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

 

ORDER:

 

1.                This is a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.                It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs with the bank vide Fixed Deposit advice dated 01.11.2018 for 799 days bearing Deposit Account No.2290130050000094, Customer ID No.2290700193 @ 9% interest per annum and a sum of Rs.4,85,926/- was to be paid to her as redeem maturity amount on 08.01.2021. She was informed by the OPs that her saving bank account become dormant and accordingly she approached the bank on 04.01.2021 to make her account as operative, but to great shock and surprise, she was informed on 04.01.2021 that her Fixed Deposit had been treated as partially withdrawn i.e. before the redeem date of 08.01.2021 and further told that she would be paid Rs.4,75,221/- instead of Rs.4,85,926/- by deducting Rs.10705. The complainant strongly and vehemently protested the illegal action on the part of bank, but it did not pay any attention to her requests. She had to make a complaint immediately on customer care No.18002082121 in this regard, but no specific and satisfactory reply was given till date. She submitted an application of RTGS on 08.01.2021 in the office of OP No.1, but instead of making payment on the same date, an amount of Rs.4,75,221/- was remitted to her on 12.01.2021. In this regard, she served a legal notice to the OPs on 15.02.2021, but they did not care even to the same. The complainant never made any request to the OPs in writing to close her fixed deposit before due date and in the absence of that, her FD cannot be closed before the close/redeem date. The aforesaid action on the part of OPs amounted to deficiency in service, due to which, she suffered great mental agony, hardship and financial loss, constraining her to file the present complaint against the OPs.

3.                Upon notice of complaint, OPs appeared and filed their written stating therein that on 04.01.2021, the complainant visited the branch of OP and requested for breaking the FD under Account No.2290130050000094. The maturity date for FD was 08.01.2021. However, on request of complainant, the FD amount was broken and proceeds of FD amount was transferred to other account of complainant pertaining to A.U. Small Finance Bank. It has been duly communicated/informed to the complainant regarding the deduction of Rs.10705/- for pre-closure of FD amount by the OPs before 08.01.2021. On 04.01.2021, complainant visited the branch of OP with request to break the FD in question, it was advised/informed to her that additional charges can be deducted for the pre-closure of FD account, but she was ready for the deduction on her own will and given the FD closure request form to the branch office of the OPs. Thereafter, the bank accordingly transferred the FD amount in the complainant’s other account as provided by her after deduction of Rs.10,705/- from the account of complainant in lieu of breaking of FD before its maturity date. After the amount was transferred, the complainant started behaving very rude towards the bank officials and she snatched the FD advice form (closer request signed by the complainant on backside) from bank office desk and tore the same. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

4.                In support to support her case, complainant tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the OPs tendered affidavit Ex.RW1A along with document Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs with the bank vide Fixed Deposit advice dated 01.11.2018 for 799 days @ 9% interest per annum and a sum of Rs.4,85,926/- was to be paid to her as redeem maturity amount on 08.01.2021. The complainant was informed by the OPs that her saving bank account become dormant and accordingly she approached the bank on 04.01.2021 to make her account as operative, but to great shock and surprise, she was informed on 04.01.2021 that her Fixed Deposit had been treated as partially withdrawn i.e. before the redeem date of 08.01.2021 and further told that she would be paid Rs.4,75,221/- instead of Rs.4,85,926/- by deducting Rs.10705. The complainant submitted an application of RTGS on 08.01.2021 in the office of OP No.1, but instead of making payment on the same date, an amount of Rs.4,75,221/- was remitted to her on 12.01.2021. In this regard, she served a legal notice to the OPs on 15.02.2021, but they did not care even to the same. The complainant never made any request to the OPs in writing to close her fixed deposit before due date and in the absence of that, her FD cannot be closed before the close/redeem date. The aforesaid action on the part of OPs amounted to deficiency in service.

8.                The learned counsel for OPs argued that on 04.01.2021, the complainant visited the branch of OP and requested for breaking the FD under Account No.2290130050000094. The maturity date for FD was 08.01.2021. However, on request of complainant, the FD amount was broken and proceeds of FD amount was transferred to other account of complainant pertaining to A.U. Small Finance Bank. It has been duly communicated/informed to the complainant regarding the deduction of Rs.10705/- for pre-closure of FD amount by the OPs before 08.01.2021. On 04.01.2021, complainant visited the branch of OP with request to break the FD in question, it was advised/informed to her that additional charges can be deducted for the pre-closure of FD account, but she was ready for the deduction on her own will and given the FD closure request form to the branch office of the OPs. Thereafter, the bank accordingly transferred the FD amount in the complainant’s other account as provided by her after deduction of Rs.10,705/- from the account of complainant in lieu of breaking of FD before its maturity date. After the amount was transferred, the complainant started behaving very rude towards the bank officials and she snatched the FD advice form (closer request signed by the complainant on backside) from bank office desk and tore the same. There was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal the present complaint.

9.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.4 lacs with the OPs bank, vide Fixed Deposit Advice dated 01.11.2018 and on 08.01.2021, a sum of Rs.4,85,926/- was to be paid to her as maturity amount.

10.              The main grievance of the complainant is that her saving bank account become dormant and on 04.01.2021 her Fixed Deposit had been treated as partially withdrawn before the redeem date of 08.01.2021 by the OPs without her consent, and paid Rs.4,75,221/- instead of Rs.4,85,926/- to her by deducting Rs.10705/-. On the other hand, in this regard, the OPs mainly contended that on 04.01.2021, the complainant visited the branch and requested for breaking her Fixed Deposit in question and as such, the OPs transferred the Fixed Deposit amount in complainant’s other account after deducting Rs.10,705/- regarding pre-closure of Fixed Deposit account. But it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs failed to produce any written consent/request of the complainant on the case file, vide which, it can be gathered that the complainant ever requested the OPs for pre-closure of her Fixed Deposit account on 04.01.2021 before the maturity date 08.01.2021 after deducting pre-closure charges of Rs.10,705/- and in this regard, mere oral version of OPs cannot be believed.

11.              The OPs has further contended that the complainant had visited the branch and snatched the FD advice form from the bank office desk and torn the same. It is not the case of the OPs that the complainant had torn the said form and taken the same with herself and for the sake of discussion, if this contention of the OPs is believed, even then, it was incumbent upon the OPs to collect the pieces of said torn form and pasted the same and produced the same on the case file in order to prove their above contentions and also to lodge a police complaint against the complainant in this regard, but nothing such like has been done by the OPs, which caused serious dent to the above contentions of the OPs. Moreover, the OPs had not produced the CCTV footage on the case file, of that alleged day when the complainant came in the OP branch and torn the said form.

12.              From the document Ex.C-3, it is clear that 08.01.2021, the complainant made request to the OPs to remit the said amount through RTGS in his account and in the RTGS, the amount transferred on the same day, but the OPs remitted the amount of FD in the account of complainant on 12.01.2021 i.e. after four days of submission of RTGS form, by the complainant with the OPs, which is also deficiency in service on the part of OPs. So, in view of above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the OPs failed to prove on the case file, by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the complainant had ever made request to the OPs for pre-closure of her Fixed Deposit account, meaning thereby, the OPs pre-closed the same without the consent of complainant and deducted Rs.10,705/- in this regard, which is an act of gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practise on the part of OPs. In the complaint, complainant admitted the fact regarding receiving Rs.4,75,221/- from the OPs, instead of total maturity amount of Rs.4,85,926/- i.e. less amount of Rs.10705/- (485926-475221), as such, the OPs not only liable to refund/pay the said amount of Rs.10705/- to the complainant, but also liable to pay the compensation amount and litigation expenses, to the complainant for their act of deficiency in service.

13.              In view of our above discussion, we accept the present complaint against OPs and direct them jointly and severally refund Rs.10705/- to the complainant. We further direct the OPs, jointly and severally to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant, as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, caused to the complainant and litigation expenses. The OPs are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 45 days from the date of preparation of certified copy of this order, failing which, the award amount of Rs.10,705/- shall carry interest @6% simple per annum, from the date of this order, till its actual realization, and the complainant shall also be at liberty to initiate proceedings u/s 71/72 of the Act, against the OPs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to record-room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission:

Dated:04.07.2022.

 

     

                                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)               

(Neelam)                    (Issam Singh Sagwal)                   President,

Member.                    Member.                                                  DCDRC, Kurukshetra.           
 

 

 

Typed by: Sham Kalra, Stenographer.