Back
WEST BENGAL STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLKATA
S. COARI, MRIDULA ROY, MEMBERS
HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Ashok Kumar Sinha - Respondent
S.C. Case No. FA/652 of 2010
Decided on : 20-06-2012
For the Appellants :Mr. Archan Dutta, Mr. Ayan Kr. Baral and Mr. Susanta Bhattacharya, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Mr. Alok Mukhopadhyay, Advocate.
The court confirmed the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, finding the bank deficient in service for not paying the maturity value of the fixed deposit to the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Fixed Deposit - The court confirmed the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, which found the bank deficient in service for not paying the maturity value of the fixed deposit to the complainant. The court rejected the bank's argument of automatic renewal and upheld the decision in favor of the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit with the OP-Bank for the period of 12 months 15 days, which matured on 7th March, 2008 with the maturity value of Rs. 32,745.07. The Fixed Deposit was further re-invested for another term of 12 months 15 days, which also matured on 22.3.09 with the maturity value of Rs. 36,009.76. The complainant requested the Ops to pay the maturity value, but the Ops did not pay, leading to the consumer complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the bank deficient in service and confirmed the decision of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in favor of the complainant.
Issues: The main issue was whether the District Forum was justified in disposing of the complaint in favor of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court rejected the bank's argument of automatic renewal and upheld the decision in favor of the complainant, finding no merit in the bank's appeal.
Final Decision: The Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost. The impugned judgment stands confirmed.
ORDER :
Mr. S. Coari, Member-The present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dt. 21.6.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II in Case No. CDF/Unit-II/1140/2009 wherein the Ld. District Forum allowed the petition of complaint ex parte against the Ops with a direction upon the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 36,009.75 to the complainant together with interest @ 9.25% p.a. from the date of maturity within one month from the date of communication of this order along with a further direction upon the Ops to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
2. The case of the complainant/Respondent before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs. 30,000/- in the form of Fixed Deposit with the OP-Bank for the period of 12 months 15 days, which matured on 7th March, 2008 with the maturity value of Rs. 32,745.07. According to the complainant, on maturity the Fixed Deposit was further re-invested for another term of 12 months 15 days, which also matured on 22.3.09 with the maturity value of Rs. 36,009.76. As the complainant was in urgent need of money, he requested the Ops to pay to the complainant the maturity value of the Fixed Deposit by sending the Fixed Deposit Receipt to the Ops by courier. As the Ops remained silent as regards payment of maturity value to the complainant, the complainant had no alternative but to institute the consumer complaint for proper redressal.
3. The Ops in spite of receipt of notice from the Consumer Forum did not appear and contest the case and accordingly the case was heard ex parte.
4. Ld. District Forum while disposing of the petition of complaint ex parte has observed that the complainant was successful in substantiating his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence and from the materials on record it has become evident that the OP/Bank was deficient in service and accordingly, disposed of the complaint case in favour of the complainant as mentioned above.
5. The only moot question that revolves round the present Appeal is as to whether the Ld. District Forum was justified enough in disposing of the petition of complaint in the manner as mentioned above.
DECISION WITH REASONS
6. At the time of hearing it has been submitted on behalf of the Appellant Bank that in this case the Ld. District Forum has taken a one-sided view and as such, has arrived at a wrong and improper decision, which is not at all sustainable under the law. According to the Ld. Advocate, when from the materials on record it has become evident that the complainant has encashed the Fixed Deposit meant for the first term, question of re-investment of the maturity value of the first deposit does not arise at all. According to the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, taking advantage of automatic renewal the Complainant/Respondent has obtained the impugned judgment in his favour, which is extremely detrimental to the interest of the Appellant-Bank and on this score alone the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
7. We have duly considered the submissions so put forward on behalf of the Appellant and have also gone through the materials on record including the impugned judgment and find that in this case the complainant has come forward with a case to the effect that initially Rs. 30,000/- was put under Fixed Deposit with the Bank and thereafter on maturity of the said Fixed Deposit the same was re-invested for another term and when it got matured, the complainant requested the Ops to pay the maturity value, which, for reasons best known to the OP-Bank they did not pay the maturity value to the complainant and hence, the petition of complaint. Though the Bank did not contest the case before the Ld. District Forum, but at the appeal stage the Bank has taken a plea to the effect that after maturity of the first Fixed Deposit the complainant encashed the same and after taking unfair advantage of ‘automatic renewal’; the complai
