M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.1872 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 12.09.2019 passed in Case.No.01/2019 by District Commission, Rajgarh)

BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BAMLABE BRANCH, TEHSIL BIORA, DISTT. RAJGARH … APPELLANT.

Versus SMT.SUSHILA BAI, R/O MUNDAL VILLAGE, PANCHAYAT BANPUR, TEHSIL AND DISTT. RAJGARH 465667 .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri H.R.Mutreja, learned counsel for the appellant.

Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .06.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) directed against the order dated 12.09.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajgarh (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.01/2019, whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant /

respondent.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant / respondent had made fixed deposit for an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 05.02.1999 bearing DBD no.11/68 and account no.223 with the Bank. The said fixed deposit matured on 05.05.2002 for value of Rs.14,455/-. It is alleged that when the complainant / respondent demanded the maturity amount the Bank assured that the same would be given soon. The complainant / respondent was under presumption that her FDR would be auto-renewed and the maturity amount would be given to her. The complainant / respondent alleged that despite assurances the maturity value was not given to her and therefore, she alleged deficiency in service against the Bank and filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The Bank in its reply before the District Commission submitted that the complainant / respondent had already obtained the maturity value on the date of maturity i.e. 05.05.2002. No amount is due to be paid to her. She had filed instant complaint in order to harass the Bank, on the basis of fake grounds. Also, there is no availability of record with the Bank. It is also submitted by the Bank that the complaint case is barred by limitation.

4. The District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay the maturity value of Rs.14,455/- alongwith accrued interest, on the basis of auto-renewal to the complainant / respondent, within a period of one month. In addition compensation of Rs.2,000/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- is also awarded.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank reiterated that the complainant / respondent had received the payment of maturity amount on 05.05.2002. The District Commission has erroneously held that the FDR was automatically renewed when such system was not available in the Bank during the relevant period. The auto-renewal system was introduced for the first time in the year 2007, when computerization of banking system was done. Records pertaining to fixed deposits are to be preserved for a period of not less than 10 years immediately preceding to current calendar year and thus the claim of the complainant / respondent at the belated stage with the gap of 17 years is not tenable. The District Commission has also committed error by relying on a postal AD card regarding service of legal notice on the Bank as the said card is fabricated. The Bank is not mentioned as addressee in the said card and the receiving also does not bear any seal and signatures of the Bank. He therefore, prayed that the impugned order which is erroneous, deserves to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant / respondent on the other hand supported the impugned order and argued that the Bank has rightly been held deficient in service by the District Commission since the maturity amount of the FDR was not paid to the complainant / responden