Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dinesh Singh, Presiding Member and Karuna Nand Bajpayee, Member
Taken up through video conferencing
Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. and Anr. – Petitioners
versus
Sundershan Sood and Ors. – Respondents
Revision Petition No.4614 of 2009
(Against the Order dated 16/11/2009 in Appeal No.208/2009 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 27.10.2021
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. Rahul Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3:Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate
For the Respondent No.4: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINTS
1) No persuasive explanation given by Petitioners for withholding maturity values of belatedly renewed fixed deposits.
2) Not renewing fixed deposits for undue and unreasonable period despite timely request(s), not paying maturity values of the belatedly renewed fixed deposits for undue and unreasonably drawn-out period clearly falls within the meaning of ‘deficiency’ as contained in section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(b) (Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 58(1)(b)) – Revision Petition – Against Order dt. 16.11.2009 in Appeal passed by State Commission - Matter relates to undue and unreasonable delay in renewing fixed deposits of respondents and undue and unreasonable delay in paying maturity values of despite timely requests to the Petitioner bank – Complaint filed before the Distt. Forum – Distt. Forum directed Respondent no. 1 and 3 to pay interest @ 12% p.a. for the period 18.01.2005 to 14.07.2005 on Rs. 8,00,000, pay interest@ 12% p.a. on 85,000/- from 14.07.2006 till 10.08.2007 to each of 3 complainants, pay Rs. 2000/- deducted by respondents as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or TDS Certificate in original in respect of TDS be issued, Rs. 2000 as litigation cost to each of three complainants – Appeal filed by Petitioners before the State Commission was dismissed – Findings of this Commission, Post-Arguments - Petitioners argued about KYC requirements not being fulfilled by Respondents for which this Commission blamed Petitioners for arbitrary highhanded attitude towards Respondents - No persuasive explanation given for withholding maturity values of belatedly renewed fixed deposits - Not renewing fixed deposits for undue and unreasonable period despite timely request(s), not paying maturity values of the belatedly renewed fixed deposits for undue and unreasonably drawn out period clearly falls within the meaning of ‘deficiency’ as contained in section 2(1)(g) of the Act 1986 - State Commission made an apt appraisal of the issues germane in the matter and passed a well- reasoned Order - No good ground to interfere in the exercise of this Commission’s revisional jurisdiction (Paras 3, 7, 9, 10 & 11)
Result: Petition, being misconceived, bereft of worth, frivolous and vexatious, is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-
ORDER
This revision has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 16.11.2009 of the State Commission in appeal no. 208 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 17.03.2009 of the District Commission in complaint no. 377 of 2008.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the two sides. Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 17.03.2009 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 16.11.2009 of the State Commission and the petition.
3. The matter relates to undue and unreasonable delay in renewing the fixed deposits of the complainants (the respondents herein) by the bank (the petitioners herein) despite timely request(s) and also regarding the undue and unreasonable delay in paying the maturity values of the said belatedly renewed fixed deposits.
The District Commission passed its Order on contest.
It concluded its appraisal by observing that “- - - It appears that the OPs are still living in the 16th Century and not in 21st Century using wholly ancient and archaic methods and procedures leading to inefficiency and loss of time and money. The OPs have caused a lot of harassment, mental pain and agony to the complainants who lost more than 1½ years interest on their hard earned deposits. They have not only delayed the renewal of the FDRs for about six months but also not supplied the renewed FDRs to them for more than one year even after renewal of the same. This is grave negligence callous carelessness and gross deficiency in service on their part. Further for the period of 1½ year, which only lapsed due to procedural wrangles, they have not paid a penny of interest which means that amount has been wrongfully and illegally pocketed by the OPs at the cost of the complainants for the simple reason that the entire money of the complainants has remained with the OPs for more than 1½ year in additional to the normal renewal period of FDRs of one year. - - - We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the present complaint must succeed in favour of the complainant and against the OPs and we order accordingly. - - -”.
And the District Commission made the following award:
We direct the OPs 1 & 3 to do the following:-
1. Pay interest @ 12% per annum for the period 18.01.2005 to 14.07.2005 on Rs. 80,0000 to each of the three complainants.
2. Pay interest@ 12% per annum on 85,000/- form 14.07.2006 till 10.08.2007 i.e. the date of payment of the respective amounts to each of three complainants.
3. Pay Rs. 2000/- which has been deducted by the OPs as Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) or in the alternative TDS Certificate in original in respect of TDS be issued to each of three complainants.
4. To pay Rs. 2000/- as the legal cost of the litigation to each of the three complainants.
This order be complied with by OPs 1 & 3 within a period of six weeks of the receipt of its certified copy by them, failing which the OPs 1 & 3 shall also pay interest @ 18% per annum on the amounts at Sr. (i) to (iii) in the fore goings from the date of this order till realization in addition to the payments already ordered as above.
4. The bank preferred appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission re-appraised the case and vide its Order dated 16.11.2009 dismissed the appeal. The State Commission framed three issues and answered the each of the three in favour of the complainants.
Extracts from the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:
We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The main issues that need to be gone into are as under:-
1. The date of renewal of FDRs in the year 2005.
2. The validity of deduction of Rs. 2,000/- as TDS.
3. The payment of interest for the last payment of the proceeds of the renewed FDRs.
From the facts of the case as gleaned from the evidence on record, it becomes clear that the complainants vide their renewal applications had asked OPs No.
