Rajasthan

StateCommission

CC/160/2017

Smt. Preety Dhaliwal W/o. Shri Harmanu Singh Dhaliwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Jaisingh Rathour

11 Jun 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

COMPLAINT CASE NO: 160/2017

 

Smt.Preeti Dhaliwal w/o Harmoon Singh Dhaliwal r/o Flat No. B 208, Ashapurna Apartment, Opp. DAV School, Near Amrapali Circle, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Union Bank of India, Br. Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur through Br.Manager, D-244 Amrapali Circle, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur.

 

Date of Order 11.6.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Hon'ble Mrs. Meena Mehta -Member

 

Mr. Shreenath Tewari & Mr. Prerit Goyal counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

2

 

This complaint is filed on 22.12.2017 with the contention that the complainant opened a saving bank account with the non-applicant in January 2017. Thereafter he fixed deposited Rs. 60 lakhs on 1.7.2017 for one year. She was having contract with Affrican Development Bank. On 12.8.2017 the complainant submitted an application for pre-mature encashment of the fixed deposit which was refused hence, the complaint has been filed with the relief that fixed deposit receipt be encashed alongwith compensation and cost of proceedings.

 

Heard the counsel for the complainant and perused the impugned complaint as well as documents submitted alongwith the complaint.

 

As per Anx. 1 Rs. 64,24,078/- were deposited in term deposit for one year and maturity date was 1.7.2018 and vide Anx. 6 on 12.8.2017 the complainant asked the bank to give the reason of lien and FD be encashed and contention of the complainant is that bank is not ready to encash the fixed deposit amount. The complainant herself has submitted Anx.08 the letter of the non-applicant dated 11.12.2017 wherein it has

3

 

been stated that the bank has mark lien on all term deposits and e-mail dated 6.12.2017 of ATM Cell Mumbai has also been reproduced in the communication which clearly reveals that Rs. 92,32,708.37 are recoverable from the complainant so the lien is marked for the same.

 

The complainant has not pleaded anything that amount is not recoverable from her and even ATM Cell Mumbai has not made party and no relief has been claimed for the same. Hence, when amount is due towards the complainant and lien has been marked by the non-applicant no deficiency could be attributed to the non-applicant.

 

In view of the above the complainant is misplaced, has no cause of action, is not maintainable and stands dismissed.

 

(Meena Mehta) (Nisha Gupta)

Member President

 

 

nm