SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had a Fixed Deposit Account bearing TRD No.580043 for Rs.50,000/- for a term of three years with the OP Bank and such TDR was pre-matured encash for the knee operation of the complainant . The complainant further invested Rs.50,000/- with the OP Bank in MIS Scheme bearing Receipt No. 20081942834. The grievance of the complainant is that in spite of maturity of those Fixed Deposit and MIS Scheme, the matured amount was not credited to the account of the complainant. Complainant made a complaint to the Manager of the OP Bank in this regard but such complaint was unattended. Finding no other alternative, complainant issued a legal notice to the Manager, OP Bank requesting to furnish necessary details of the Fixed Deposit and MIS Scheme but no response is received from the end of the OP. The complainant therefore filed the instant consumer complaint, seeking refund of matured Fixed Deposit and MIS Scheme amount including other reliefs.
The complaint is resisted by the OP Bank who took a preliminary objection that the consumer complaint is not maintainable in law as well as in fact. The specific case of the OP is that the complainant had a Term Deposit Receipt being No.580043 dated 25.04.2006 for Rs.50,000/- for a period of three years and its maturity value was Rs.63,880/- as on 25.04.2009 but the complainant pre matured encash the said TDR on 21.05.2007 and as per instruction of the complainant a new TDR was issued under DDP Receipt No. 8721337 on 21.05.2007 for a period of 21 months with maturity value of Rs. 64,530/- as on 21.02.2009. Again such DDP Receipt was pre matured encash on 28.05.2007 and out of the pre matured value of Rs.50,000/- was invested in a new TDR under MIS Account No. 701711- 43 -165 and remaining amount of Rs.4,349/- was credited to the S.B. Account No. 111391 of the complainant. The MIS Account was finally encashed on 14.03.2009 after its maturity and Rs.50,413/- was credited to the S.B. Account No. 20081868235 of the complainant. So far as the TDR Receipt No. 580482 dated 24.06.2006 was closed on premature as per instruction of the complainant and premature amount of Rs.49,478/- was credited to the SB Account No. 111391 ( new computerized No. 20081868235 ) of the complainant. The consumer complaint is frivolous and there is no deficiency in service and / or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
On the pleadings of the parties the following points have been raised for the sake of proper and effective adjudication of the case :
1) Is the OP deficient in rendering service to the complainant ?
2) Is the OP indulged in unfair trade practice ?
3) Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
Points No 1 to 3 :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.
Both parties have tendered evidence on affidavit. They have also given reply against the questionnaire set forth by their adversaries. Both parties have also filed Brief Notes of Arguments.
It remains undisputed that the complainant had a Term Deposit Receipt being No. 580043 dated 25.04.2006 for Rs.50,000/- for a term of three years with the OP Bank and its maturity value was Rs.63,880/- as on 25.04.2009. It also remains undisputed that the said TDR was pre matured encash and as per instruction of the complainant a new DDR Receipt No. 872337 amounting to Rs.54,287/- for a period of 21 months was issued and its maturity value was Rs.64,530/-. Such receipt was again encashed prior to its maturity and out of matured value of Rs.54,349/-, a new TDR under MIS Account No. 701711 - 43- 165 for Rs.50,000/- was issued on 28.05.20-07 for a period of 21 months and the balance amount of Rs.4,349/- was credited to the S.B. Account of the complainant on the self same day. So far the TDR Receipt No. 580482 dated 24.06.2006 for Rs.50,000/- it was closed prior to its maturity as per instruction of the complainant and matured amount of Rs.49,478/- was credited to the S.B. Account of the Complainant. On scrutiny of the Annexure - A to I, we find that a new term deposit receipt for Rs.50,000/- under MIS Account No. 20081942834 for a period of 21 month was issued and its maturity date shown as 28.02.2009. It further appears to us that on 27.03.2009 the said MIS Account was closed and a new MIP Account being No. 50011569959 for Rs.50,000/- was issued to the complainant on the self same day for a period of one year and the balance amount of Rs.413/- was credited to the S.B. Account of the complainant on 27.03.2009. The MIP for Rs. 50,000/- was finally encashed on 30.03.2010 after its maturity and the entire matured amount was credited to the S.B. Account of the complainant. Thus, it is crystal clear to us that how the two term deposit receipts were closed and the proceeds amount finally transferred to the S.B. Account of the complainant on 14.03.2009 and 30.03.2010 respectively. Photocopies of Statement of Accounts of TDR, S.B. Account and Account Opening Forms, clearly destroyed the case of the complainant and the above documents as well as transactions generated through computer system and also certified under the Bankers’ Books of Evidence Act, 1891. The above statements are authentic. The OP Bank has followed procedure and payment has been credited in the S.B. Account of the complainant. Bank cannot made any wrong and mistakes on their part. In our opinion, the complainant has failed to show any deficiency of rendering service and / or unfair trade practice against the OP Bank. As such, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Thus, all the points under determination answered in the negative.
In the result, the case merit fails.
Hence,
Ordered
That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP Bank but without any cost.
