H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHIMLA.

First Appeal No.: 168/2019 Date of Presentation: 02.05.2019 Reserved on: 06.03.2024 Date of Decision: 19.03.2024 ………………………………………………………………………

1. Shri Nihal Singh Thakur S/o late Sh. Raj Singh.

2. Shri Yadvinder S/o late Sh. Raj Singh.

3. Smt.Dromati Devi W/o late Sh. Raj Singh.

All R/o Village Daundhi, P.O. Nagchalla, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P.

…....... Appellants/Complainants.

Versus

1. Manager, Himachal Gramin Bank, Nagchalla, Branch Nagchalla, Tehsil Balh, District Mandi, H.P.

2. Chief Manager Himachal Gramin Bank, Head Office Jail Road Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.

.......... Respondents/Opposite parties.

………………………………………………………………………

Coram Hon’ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.

Hon’ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ Yes.

Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?

For the Appellants: Mr.Sanjay Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.H.S.Rangra, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Mr. Arvind Kumar Rattan, Advocate.

……………………………………………………………………………

Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President

O R D E R:

Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 07.03.2019 of learned District Forum Mandi, in consumer complaint No.05/18 titled Nihal Singh Thakur & Ors. Versus Manager, Himachal Gramin Bank & Anr., whereby, the complaint filed by the complainants was dismissed.

Brief facts of the Case

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Raj Singh (father of complainants No.1 & 2 and husband of complainant No.3) was having savings bank account and five fixed deposit receipts (FDRs) with the opposite parties/Bank. Money lying deposited in the savings bank account was Rs.51,961/-, whereas, maturity value of the FDRs was Rs.28,15,399/-. Unfortunately, Raj Singh died on 13.11.2011 i.e. before the maturity dates of FDRs. The complainants informed the opposite party No.2/Bank on 12.03.2012 regarding the death of Shri Raj Singh. The opposite parties released the amount to the tune of Rs.30,23,487/- in favour of the complainants on 18.01.2016, after the lapse of 3½ years. The interest on FDRs after maturity was not properly calculated despite the fact that the money was retained for 3½ years. Total amount payable was Rs.37,60,453/-. However, Rs.7,36,966/- were paid less. The intimation of death of deceased was given to the opposite parties/Bank on 12.03.2012 and despite intimation, the opposite parties/Bank failed to pay the maturity amount alongwith interest for due date for no fault of the complainants. The opposite parties/Bank indulged in unfair trade practice and were deficient in rendering the service. Hence, this complaint.

3. The opposite parties/Bank filed reply to the complaint of the complainants and stated that Shri Raj Singh (now deceased) was the holder of a savings bank account and FDRs with the opposite parties/Bank. The opposite parties/bank denied the factum that the claim was not settled within time or was kept pending by the Bank. Interest on FDRs was rightly calculated and money was credited to the account(s) of the complainants in their presence. The complainants are not entitled to the money, as claimed. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties/Bank. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.

4. No rejoinder was filed by the complainants.

5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After hearing the parties, learned District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainants.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Forum, the appellants/complainants have preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.

8. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and have perused the written submissions filed on behalf of the complainants as well as the opposite parties/Bank and have also perused the record carefully.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants/ complainants has submitted that once the FDR is purchased, both the parties are bound by the term