A depositor is entitled to claim the maturity amount of a Fixed Deposit even after a lapse of over 20 years, as there is no time limit for claiming such funds; banks cannot refuse payment solely based on the age of the deposit if proof of investment exists.

MONDAY, THE 06th DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX

*******

Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed U/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party, aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Karimnagar dated 29.10.2020 in CC 112/2016 where under the opposite party was directed to pay the complainant the fixed deposit maturity amount of Rs.2,02,500/- with accrued interest from the date of maturity till realization and an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards costs within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

2. The parties are herein after referred to as they were arrayed before the District Commission, as complainants and opposite party.

3. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant was having a SB Account with opposite party from 17.10.1981 and invested an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on 03.11.1986 under Multi Benefit and old age Deposit vide receipt No.QUB-107916. It was deposited jointly in his name and in the name of his son Mutyam Rajender Goud. The Complainant claims he was unwell and approached the opposite party with an intention to withdraw the invested amount along with accrued interest. He submitted the application on 02.11.2015 but he received no reply from the opposite party. Thereafter several letters were submitted to the opposite party bank but he did not receive any reply from them. Vexed with their attitude, he made an application before the Banking Ombudsman and received a reply from the opposite party on 21.01.2016 stating that the above claim cannot be entertained after a lapse of about 28 years from the date of deposit and 22 years after date of maturity and the claim amount is not outstanding in their books. It is his grievance that the opposite party is trying to evade the payment of deposited amount with interest and for this deficiency in service, he has approached the District Commission for redressal.

4. a) Written version of the opposite party :-The opposite party submits that the claim of the complainant is hopelessly time barred. It is a fact that the complainant was having a savings account with their bank from 17.10.1981 but it was transferred to “DORMANT” category as the complainant had stopped operating the account for a long time. No evidence is available from the records to establish the fact of depositing the amount in the form of fixed deposits as claimed by the complainant, hence, the claims made under FDR NO.’s QBU-107916 & QBU-107917, dated 03.01.1986 by the complainant are declined by this opposite party bank.

b) It is also a fact that the complainant has submitted a complaint through the Banking Ombudsman office situated in RBI, Hyderabad on 09.12.2015. The Ombudsman after examining the claim of the petitioner as well as replies submitted by the respondent bank has finally disposed the petitioner’s claim without giving any relief to him as he was convinced with the bank’s contention of abnormal delay of 28 years on the part of the complainant in submitting the claim for the proceeds of the above FDRs. Moreover, the Ombudsman has also taken note of the expiry of the limitation for the cause of the complaint.

c) The complainant could not establish the debtor/creditor relationship between the Bank and himself as his FDRs and their related accounts were not found in the records. Therefore his claim is not maintainable against the opposite party bank.

5. The Consumer Complaint No.112/2016 was fi