Delhi

East Delhi

CC/98/2021

ANITA KANWAL & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

18 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. No.98/2021

 

	MS. ANITA KANWAL W/O SHRI SHIV RAJ KANWAL   SHRI SHIV RAJ KANWAL S/O LT. SHRI NANAK CHAND   BOTH RESIDENCE OF 7/162, GEETA COLONY, DELHI-110031	….Complainants
Versus
	THE MANAGER PUNJAB AND SIND BANK GEETA COLONY BRANCH, DELHI-110031	……OP

 

Date of Institution: 18.02.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 18.08.2022

Judgment Passed on: 20.08.2022

 

CORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

 

Order By: Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

 

 

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The complaint pertains to deficiency in service on the part of OP bank for not paying this FDRs deposited with the bank. 

The brief facts as stated by the complainants are they had deposited money in fixed deposit in Punjab and Sind Bank Geeta Colony vide receipt no. 0446462/51/92 and receipt no. 446455/44/92 for Rs25,840/- and  Rs.20,000/- respectively. The amount was initially deposited for 46 days.  The Complainants were assured by the Manager of the Bank that the FDRs would be automatically renewed if not encashed.  It is submitted that the Complainants were not in need of money at that time and therefore did not encash the FDRs.

However, the Complainants met the Manager/Incharge of OP on 14.10.2020 and 3.11.2020 for encashment of the aforesaid FDRs but he refused to encash. A letter dated 14.10.2020 was also written but of no use and then the complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2020 to the OP which was neither replied nor complied with.

Notice was issued to OP by the Commission but none appeared despite service of notice.  OP was accordingly proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 23.12.2021. Thereafter, advocate. Ms. Geeta Vohra Panel Advocate for OP bank appeared before this Commission in one another matter and on the request of the Commission offered to assist the Commission. The relevant order dated 03.03.2022 is reproduced as below: 

Through V.C.

Present:    Complainant in person  

                 OP (Ex-parte)

Complainant is a senior citizen.  OP is (Ex-parte) yet Ms. Geeta Vohra appears in another case (CC/301/2019) & is requested to assist.  She has asked the document which has been supplied to her (FDR).  She has assured to get the matter settled in Lok Adalat.  Original FDR brought by complainant seen and returned. 

Several efforts were made for settlement but matter could not be settled. On 31.3.2022, Ms. Geeta Vohra Advocate for OP filed an application for setting aside Ex-parte orders.  The said application was dismissed vide order dated 4.8.2022 by a detailed order, and matter was kept for 20.8.2022 for orders, as the complainants are senior citizens. 

The Complainants filed affidavit in support of their averments and exhibited the following documents:

• Photocopy of two FDRs exhibited as EX CW-1/A and EX CW-1/B.
• Copy of letter dated 25.04.2015 and 14.10.2020 exhibited as EX CW-1/C and EX CW-1/D.
• Copy of legal notice dated 19.11.2020 along with postal receipts exhibited as EX CW-1/E.

We have considered the pleadings and material/document placed on record. The Complainants have filed the original FDRs. The said FDRs show that a sum of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.25,840/- has been deposited for a period of 46 days from 9.5.1992 to 24.6.1992 and 7.5.1992 to 22.6.1992 respectively @13% p.a. 

The Complainants have stated in their affidavit that they were assured by the Manager of OP about the auto renewal of FDRs. As the Complainants were not in need of money, they did not get the FDRs encashed. It has not come on record if the FDR were to get automatically renewed or not.

The Complainants have also filed an undated letter requesting the credit of two FDRs in their saving account and the same has been duly received by OP on 25.4.2015.  The Complainants have also filed another letter dated 14.10.2020 for the credit of the FDRs in their account and this has also been duly received by OP on 14.10.2020.

Although Ms. Geeta Vohra advocate, the panel lawyer for the OP has been appearing and even tried her level best to get the matter settled, but officially there is no reply of the bank on record. It is also not on record, if the two FDRs are on the bank record or not though it should be on bank record if payment was not made. The complainants on the other hand have brought original FDRs and two letters. The aforementioned letters dated 25.4.2015 and 14.10.2020 for encashment of FDRs are duly received and stamped by OP. The original FDRs are submitted in the Commission. As far as genuinety of the FDR is concerned, they appear to be in order. Even otherwise the FDRs are dated 7.5.1992 and 9.5.1992 i.e. more then 30 year old, and Section 90 of Indian Evidence Act, comes in picture by which, the genuine-ness of the document can be presumed. Section 90 as of Indian Evidence Act reads as under:-

Presumption as to documents thirty years old.- Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person’s handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested by the person by whom it purports to be executed and attested.

          Explanation.- Documents are said to be in proper custody if they are in the place in which, and under the care of the person with whom, they would naturally be; but no custody is improper if it is proved to have had a legitimate origin, or if the circumstances of the particular case are such as to render such an origin probable.

It is evident that the Bank kept the amount due on FDRs which are more than 30 years old now. FDRs have been filed on record by the complainants, whose name is mentioned on it.  Therefore validity of the FDRs stand proved.

Now coming to the interest part. The original FDR bears interest @13% p.a. Presently this is not the rate of interest on FDR as on today. It is also not clear that whether FDRs have been automatically renewed or not.  Therefore, interest @ 13% p.a. cannot be granted, as there had been different rates of interest in different periods in last 30 years.

Hon’ble National Commission in a similar case, Smt. Manorama Vs Chairman, Punjab National Bank 1 (2004) CPJ 56 NC has held:-

It is not in dispute that the money was available with the Bank which it would have utilized for its purpose.  After maturity, at best it became a ‘deposit account’.   Bank has enjoyed this money ever since its maturity.  We see merit in the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to interest for the period that money was with the Bank.  In our view, maximum that the petitioner is entitled to, is interest at the prevailing rates on a Savings’ account, from time to time worked on simple interest basis. 

Despite the complainants being is possession of the original FDRs, the OP Bank failed to pay the same despite repeated requests and Legal notice which was duly received by the Bank. Hence, we find OP liable of deficiency in service on this Court. Therefore, the Commission in it its wisdom grants interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of maturity till date of realization on the average basis.

According this Commission orders.

1. OP to pay the FDR amount as mentioned in the FDR along with interest @7% p.a. on principle amount w.e.f. 1^st maturity of deposit till date of payment. 
2. OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental harassment and inconveniences and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation charges to the complainants.

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 20.8.2022.

Delhi.

 

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar) Member

(S.S. Malhotra) President