Haryana

Ambala

CC/99/2023

RAJEEV SACHDEVA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

M.K GUPTA.

03 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	99 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	07.03.2023
Date of decision	:	03.01.2024

 

Rajeev Sachdeva S/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Sachdeva, R/o H. No.93, Golden Park, Opposite Hanuman Mandir Road, Dayal Bagh, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

……. Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Punjab National Bank, Kabari Bazar, Ambala Cantt. Through its Sr. Branch Manager.
2. Punjab National Bank, Circular Office, Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana). Through its Asstt. General Manager.
3. Punjab National Bank, Head Office, 7 Bhikhaji Cama Place, New Delhi. Through Its Senior Manager.

….….  Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                             Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:-     Complainant in person.                                                                                                                                                                                       Shri Kulwinder Chawla, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1.  To pay the difference of interest paid by the OPs and the interest to be paid on FDR if renewed/roll-on as per RBI rules from March 2012 to 10th November 2022 on the said FDR of Rs.33,741/- with future Interest till the realization of the amount.
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- on account of pain, suffering, agony, mental and physical harassment.
3. To pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of litigation.
4. OR

Grant any other directions which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is maintaining a saving bank account bearing No. 01192010006050 with OP No.1 formally known as Oriental Bank of Commerce and is in a practice to convert  his saving into FDR(s) depending on the funds available in his saving account. On 27/3/2009 the complainant had fixed deposit Rs. 26,431/- with OP No.1 for 36 months @ 8.5% interest against FDR No. 01193030007690 Customer ID No. 014982211. Date of maturity of the said FDR was 27/3/2012 with Maturity value Rs.33,741/-. It was assured by the OPs that the said FDR was auto renewal / roll-on after each maturity as per the rules/authority of RBI so there was need to visit bank branch again and again for renewal of FDR. On the asking of Bank officials the complainant downloaded the mobile Banking Application "PNB One" and when he checked the deposit feature in the application he came to know that his aforesaid FDR matured on 27/3/2012 and as such he searched out the FDR in home but due to two times shifting of house the said FDR was lost and the complainant was unable to find out. On 7/11/2022 the complainant contacted OP No.1 who agreed to issue duplicate FDR subject to furnishing of Indemnity Bond as per their Performa. On 9/11/2022 the complainant furnished the indemnity Bond and as such the OPs issued the duplicate FDR cum renewal FDR No. 01193030007690 Customer ID No. 014982211 against  deposit amount of Rs.46,651/- showing  date of issuance as 10.11.2022 and date of maturity as 01.07.2024 and Maturity value as Rs.52,295/. The complainant was surprised and shocked to notice that the said FDR matured on 27/3/2012 with Maturity value Rs.33,741/- but OP No.1 mentioned the deposit amount Rs.46,651/- against the duplicate FDR i.e. only interest of Rs 12910 for 10 years and 8 months. When the complainant raised query that after 10 years 8 months FDR amount should be more than doubled, the OPs said that the said FDR was under the scheme, as such, the said FDR was not auto renewed.  However, the complainant's other FDR(s) of the same bank has been automatically renewed as per the direction/ rules of RBI Bank. Thus, the complainant is entitled to interest 9.25% as per the rate of PNB Bank as on March 2012 or as per the RBI interest roll on applicable w.e.f. March 2012. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, he served legal notice dated 15-11-2022 upon the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction etc. On merits, it has been stated that on the request and representation of complainant an amount of Rs. 26,431/- was deposited for a period of one year. The said FDR was time to time renewed as per the bank guidelines for payment of interest etc. The complainant never requested the bank for the renewal of term deposit. Duplicate term deposit was issued on furnishing indemnity bond etc. for an amount of Rs.46,651/-. The said term deposit was not for 10 years and 08 months as alleged, infact the said term deposit was for a period of one year and automatically time to time renewed on interest payable by the OPs.  The complainant is not entitled to interest @ 9.25% per annum as claimed and whatever the rate of interest was payable, has been paid to the complainant. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
4.           Complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-11 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs tendered affidavit of Amit Kulshrestha, Branch Head of OPs-Bank-Punjab National Bank, Branch Office Kabari Bazar Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP-1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.
5.           We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           The complainant submitted that by not considering his request to pay the difference of interest on the said FDR treating it as auto renewal from time to time starting from March 2012 till November 2022, the OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and are also deficient in providing service. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on the judgment dated 26.10.2018, passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh, in the case titled as Punjab National Bank, Rewari Vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat & Others and also produced the document downloaded from the NET, regarding the RBI guidelines on Auto Renewal of Fixed Deposit, which is Marked as ‘A’. 
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while reiterating the objections raised in the written version submitted that because the complainant never requested the OPs for renewal of the said FDR, as such, relevant rate of interest i.e. simple interest, for the period from March 2012 till November 2022 was levied on the amount of initial FDR and accordingly, duplicate FDR was made in that regard and handed over to the complainant, after obtaining indemnity from him, as he had lost the original FDR. The learned counsel for the OPs draw our attention to the and condition No.2.2.4 of the policy dated 25.07.2023, which is marked as ‘B’, wherein it is mentioned that if a term Deposit (TD) matures and proceeds are unpaid, the amount left unclaimed with the Bank shall attract rate of interest as applicable to savings account or the contracted rate of interest on the matured TD, whichever is lower and also to condition No.36 (D) wherein it is mentioned that “Where the consumer has not opted for auto renewal, the same shall not be auto renewed”.
8.           Neither the fact regarding opening of FDR No.01193030007690 in the sum of Rs.26,431/- on 27.03.2009 in the OP No.1-Bank for 36 months alongwith interest @8.5% p.a., which was to be matured for an amount of Rs.33,741/- on 27.03.2012; that the said FDR was lost as a result of which, the complainant was issued duplicate FDR, Annexure C-1 on 09.11.2022 with date of maturity as 01.07.2024 for maturity value of Rs.52,295/-, on furnishing of indemnity bond by him, are not in dispute.  It may be stated here that the complainant has specifically argued that a clear-cut promise was made to him by the OPs at the time of issuance of the said FDR that it will be renewed automatically, unless any contrary instructions are given to them by the complainant. Whereas, on the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs while relying upon condition No.2.2.4 and condition No.36 (D) of the policy dated 25.07.2023, and contended that on the maturity of the FDR Bank shall attract rate of interest as applicable to savings account or the contracted rate of interest, whichever is lower and also contended that “where the customer has not opted for auto renewal, the same shall not be auto renewed”.
9.           It may be stated here that the policy relied upon by the OPs has been launched on 25.07.2023. This fact cannot be ignored that the OPs in para nos.3 & 4 of their written version have candidly admitted that the said term deposit/FDR was for a period of one year and was automatically time to time renewed on interest payable by the opposite parties. Thus, in view of candid admission of the opposite parties in their written version that the said FDR was automatically renewed from time to time as such the complainant is entitled to get the FDR rate of interest on the said FDR for the period from 28.03.2012 till the date of issuance of the duplicate FDR. In the case of Punjab National Bank, Rewari Vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat & Others (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, High Court, Chandigarh has held that as per RBI guidelines, renewal clause is available as auto-renewal feature, wherein bank shall automatically renew deposit for same period and at same interest rate on maturity. In this case, when complainant did not come to renew FDRs, bank transferred same to overdue FDRs. In the absence of request for renewal, Bank is under obligation to keep funds in FDR, thus, to keep amount in overdue FDRs is against RBI guidelines-Permanent Lok Adalat directed bank to pay interest on FDR.   
10.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-
    1. To pay to the complainant the difference of interest payable on the said FDR amount @ FDR interest, accrued from time to time, from March 2012 till 10.11.2022, as prayed for and also to prepare fresh FDR accordingly, assuming to be renewed automatically @ FDR interest within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.
    2. To pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 8% on the aforesaid awarded amount of Rs.8000/- from the date of default till realization.

 

                   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 03.01.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President