DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.



Complaint no. 507 of 27.8.2007.

Date of Order 26.3.2009.



1- Jyoti Soni;

2- Pariti Soni:

both daughters of Sh. Ashok Soni, residents of 4383, Ronti Gali, Jagraon, Distt.Ludhiana.

….Complainant.

Versus



M/s Vijaya Bank, Bhadaur House Branch, G.T. Road, Ludhiana through its Manager.

….Opposite party.



COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.



Quorum:

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.



Present: Sh. Stevon Soni Adv. for complainant.

Sh. B.S. Gill Adv. for opposite party.

O R D E R



T.N. VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:



1- Both the complainants had opened Jeevan Nidhi Deposit accounts no.35572 and 35571 respectively with opposite party bank. In those accounts, complainants had been periodically depositing amount qua which entries were made by opposite party in their pass books. A sum of Rs.13825/- each is lying deposited with the bank and they are entitled for payment of the same with interest accrued there on. Complainants and their father had been approaching opposite party bank time and again with pass book, for withdrawal of amounts, but opposite party put off the matter on one pretext or the other, on the ground that records were not traceable. Hence, legal notice dated 18.5.2007 was sent, but received no reply. Same act on part of opposite party is claimed to be deficiency in service. Hence, filed the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, for payment of deposited amount alongwith 18% interest and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-. Have also claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment.

2- Opposite party in their reply, for want of knowledge on account of non availability of record, has denied claim of the complainant. It is averred that no such amount, as alleged, is deposited in the accounts mentioned by the complainant. No record of opening of these accounts and closure thereof, is available with the bank. As old record of Jeevan Nidhi Deposit and registers prior to 1994, have been destroyed in the year 1994. Only ledgers which contain running accounts in Jeevan Nidhi Deposit, are available and on those available ledgers, account numbers of both the complainants, do not figure. It means if those accounts were opened, then those might have been closed before 1994, as there was no funds in the accounts, to keep those running. Further pleaded that father of the complainants approached the bank and reply was given on 31.3.2004 and requested complainant’s father to visit bank in the month of April, 2004, but he never came to the bank thereafter. Complainant had also made complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, qua this matter.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- Complainants have supported their allegations, by tendering affidavit Ex.C1/A of Jyoti Soni, complainant and also placed on record, pass books Ex.P1 and Ex.P2. In these pass books, are entries of deposit of Rs.13825/- each. Last entry is dated 31.12.1989. Both the accounts were opened as per endorsement in the pass book on 21.12.1987. Few deposit receipts Ex.P3 to Ex.P18 qua deposit in these accounts, have also been filed by the complainant. The pass books are of bank of opposite party, containing account number, name of depositor. When complainant failed to obtain release of the deposited amount, issued legal notice Ex.P19 dated 18.5.2007 under postal receipt Ex.P20, to the opposite party, which they received vide acknowledgment Ex.P21.

5- Opposite party bank in support that the vouchers and accounts upto 1994, of Jeevan Nidhi Deposit, have been destroyed, have relied on affidavit Ex.RW1 of Sh. K.L. Dhaman, Senior Branch Manager. To substantiate that such record was destroyed after taking permission, placed on record Ex.R2 copy of letter dated 7.12.2002 issued by opposite party to its DGM, New Delhi and the record destroyed from 1990 to 1993, list of which is Ex.R3. This contains that after destruction of the record upto 1994, only that record was maintained which was not closed and those entries were made in the deposit account, copy of which is Ex.R4. In Ex.R4, account number of both the complainants is not mentioned. Therefore, on strength thereof, argued that account of both complainants was closed prior to 1994, as they must have withdrawn the amount, otherwise their account number would have been mentioned in Ex.R4.

6- But we feel that aforesaid plea qua destruction of record of Jeevan Nidhi Deposit upto 1994, would not absolve opposite party bank from liability qua deposit made by the complainants in their respective accounts. Though last deposit in the account, was made in December, 1989 and refund of the amount was claimed in 2004. Because complainant waited for 15 years to get refund of the amount, would not be justified of the fact that they have closed the account and simply on the basis of pass book entries, filed false complaint. Even notice dated 18.5.2007 Ex.P19 of the complainant, has remained un-replied. Though opposite party had sent reply to earlier notice dated 22.3.2004 of the complainant, intimating that it was year ending closing, so matter would be looked into in 3rd week of April, 2004. When probably such matter was not looked into, as conveyed under letter Ex.R5, complainant issued another notice Ex.P19 dated 18.5.2007. But this notice was only replied, by taking plea that record upto 1994 of the bank of Jeevan Nidhi Deposit, has been destroyed. Such plea is taken after complainant was compelled to come to this Fora.

7- In such scenario, we can not believe defence and denial of opposite party to deny right of complainants to receive their hard earned money deposited in their respective accounts. Simply because in list Ex.R4, account numbers of the complainants, are not recorded, their right to receive deposited amount, can not be denied. It was argued on behalf of opposite party that complainants had gone to Banking Ombudsman qua which, had not made reference in their complaint, nor produced the order, so complaint is not maintainable. We don’t subscribe to this view. Though opposite party has filed copy of letter Ex.R1, sent by them to their Regional Manager, Chandigarh, with reference about proceedings before Banking Ombudsman and also filed Ex.R6 unsigned copy of complaint dated 28.7.2006 by Sh. Ashok Soni, father of the complainants. We feel that this aspect as alleged by the opposite party that complainants approached Banking Ombudsman, would of no consequence. As what happened to that complaint of the complainants, before Banking Ombudsman, no material is placed on the record. Therefore, such plea by them, would be of no consequence or help.

8- In these circumstances, we feel that by not releasing deposited amount of both the complainants in their respective accounts, certainly opposite party would be guilty of rendering deficient services. Hence, we allow the complaint and order opposite party to pay Rs.13825/- each to both the complainants with 9% interest p.a. from 1st January, 1990 till payment and also to pay compensation and litigation costs compositely assessed at Rs.2000/-. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order, which be made available to the parties free of costs. File be completed and consigned.



Announced on 26.3.2009. T.N. Vaidya, President.

(Gurmeet Singh).