The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondent's non-production of records rendered them liable to adverse inference, and the complainant's claim was not barred by time due to the respondent's acknowledgment of the claim in 2011.

ORDER :

1. By this common order we proceed to disposed of two appeals, one filed by the opposite party, i.e. Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, in complaint No. 2/2012, i.e. F.A. No. 224/2015 and the other filed by complainant, in the said complaint, namely Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill, i.e. F.A. No. 221/2015.

2. Facts relevant for the disposal of two appeals may be noticed. Complainant had made two fixed deposits with the respondent-bank. Deposits matured in the month of March, 1997, and the amount of maturity of both the deposits was Rs. 1,16,000/-. Shri Sukhdev Singh Gill, the complainant, as per averments made in the complaint, required the respondent to re-invest the money for a further period of five years. After sometime, appellant's mother, who was joint investor with him, left for her heavenly abode and in January, 1998, appellant approached the respondent for payment of contents of the renewed fixed deposit. He was allegedly told that fixed deposit receipts were not traceable. Finally, vide letter dated 25.09.2009, copy Annexure C-8, appellant was informed by the respondent that the amount of Rs. 1,16,502/- payable on maturity of the initial two deposits, had been credited in his Saving Bank Account No. 17952 (New No. 0356000100179527) and that in that account a sum of Rs. 1,87,122/- stood to his credit as on 31.08.2009.

3. Appellant then addressed a letter, copy Annexure C-10, to the respondent reporting that he never opened any Saving Bank Account No. 17952 old with the aforesaid new number and hence, there was no question of remittance of the contents of the fixed deposits in the said account and he demanded that he be paid the amount of fixed deposits with interest payable on fixed deposits, from time to time, as per circulars of the bank. The said letter fetched no response. Another letter was written on 29.08.2010, copy Annexure C-11. That letter was also not responded. Two more letters, Annexure C-15 & C-16, were written on 21.12.2010 and 05.01.2011 respectively. They were also not responded. One more letter was written on 23.02.2011, copy Annexure C-18.

4. Finally, the respondent responded to letter dated 20.10.2010, vide letter dated 18.04.2011, copy Annexure C-20, whereby the appellant was informed that matter had been taken up with the competent authority, which had allowed interest on the proceeds of the FDRs, for a period of five years and the appellant was required to visit the respondent-bank on any working day and to furnish a receipt of full & final payment of his claim. Appellant wrote back, vide letter dated 07.05.2011, copy Annexure C-21, that he was entitled to interest on the proceeds of two FDRs at the fixed deposit rates, applicable from time to time, as per instructions of the respondent-bank. When, there was no response to that letter, he filed the complaint, seeking a direction to the respondent to pay the contents of two fixed deposits, with interest at fixed deposit rates, applicable from time to time and also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

5. Complaint was contested by the respondent and it was pleaded that when the initial two deposits matured, appellant opened a new account bearing No.17952 old (New No. 0356000100179527) and maturity value of the two deposits, amounting to Rs. 1,16,502/- was credited in that Saving Bank Account.

6. Appellant filed rejoinder and denied having opened any such saving bank account and alleged that he was already having two other saving bank accounts with the respondent and there was hardly any need for opening a new account for getting the payment of two fixed deposits. He alleged that respondent had misplaced the deposit receipts, which were submitted to him on the maturity of fixed deposits, in the year 1997, with the request for re-investment of the money in fixed deposit for further five years and, therefore, a plea of opening a new saving bank account had been cooked up to deprive him of his legitimate claim for interest at fixed deposit rates