INDER SINGH MEHTA, SUNITA SHARMA, R. K. VERMA
UCO Bank Branch Office – Appellant
Versus
Chaman Lal (Deceased) through Legal heirs – Respondent
ORDER
Inder Singh Mehta, President—Instant appeals are arising out of the common order dated 15.06.2016 passed by the Learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Una camp at Bilaspur in Consumer Complaint No.40/2011 titled Chaman Lal Sharma Versus UCO Bank and Anr.
Brief facts of Case:
2. Briefly, the case of the complainant Chaman Lal (since deceased) is that the complainant was holding saving account bearing No.2804 with opposite party No.1/UCO Bank, Branch Kuthera (HP). On 24.11.2009, the complainant had deposited Rs.70,000/- with UCO Bank, Kuthera, for purchase of FDR. The FDR certificate was issued to the complainant on 27.11.2009. The complainant further submitted that after maturity of FDR amount, he approached opposite party No.1/UCO Bank, Branch Kuthera and submitted FDR receipt for release of amount. The complainant was advised by the bank to come on next date, but on next day the bank officials refused to make the payment to the complainant on the ground that the FDR had been wrongly issued in his name on 27.11.2009. Complainant also submitted application to opposite party No.2/Zonal Manager, UCO Bank for release of FDR amount, but no reply was received by the complainant
Withdraw of Amount - The Complainant cannot be allowed to withdraw the amount which he has not deposited in the bank.
“Any customer who deposits amount under Reinvestment Plan is under assumption that the FDR will be renewed either till he approaches or gives any other specific instruction to the Bank.”
The Court reaffirmed that banks must honor valid Fixed Deposit receipts unless substantial evidence proves otherwise, upholding consumer protection principles.
1) It does not appear logical that a person would deposit part of money in his Saving Bank Acc. for converting it into Fixed Deposit and withdraw the bal. amt. of Rs.47,000/- for converting into anot....
Computerized record - Bank was duty bound to preserve a computerized record before destroying the 8 years old record which was not done by the Petitioner Bank and it amounts to deficiency in service ....
Principle Holder - The appellant was not principal holder, therefore, the respondent-bank was justified in not awarding applicable interest over and above the normal rate of interest.
Principal can be held liable for wrong committed by its Authorised Agent.
Vicarious liability of the bank for the acts of its employees.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.