Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 3563
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
S. P. Sood, Judicial Member, S. C. Kaushik, Member
Raj Rani – Appellant
Versus
Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank – Respondent
First Appeal No. 519 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Dharampal (Proxy), Lajpat Sharma
For the Respondents: Umang Khosla
In the absence of concrete evidence or written instructions, a bank is not liable for deficiency in service for failing to auto-renew a fixed deposit or for applying simple interest rates as per regulatory guidelines once a deposit remains unclaimed.
Headnote:The appeal concerns the interpretation of fixed deposit renewal terms under banking regulations. The appellant alleged that the bank failed to honor an assurance of automatic renewal with compounding interest on a deposited sum. The District Consumer Commission dismissed the complaint, finding no evidence of such an agreement. Upon review, the Court found that the appellant failed to produce evidence of an automatic renewal instruction or a contractual right to compounding interest beyond the agreed maturity terms. The central issue was whether the bank committed a deficiency in service by failing to auto-renew the fixed deposit under the same terms. The Court held that in the absence of written instructions or contractual evidence supporting the claim of automatic, compounding renewal, no deficiency in service was proven. The bank's adherence to regulatory interest rates for unclaimed deposits was deemed appropriate. The appeal is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and contentions regarding fixed deposit renewal disputes. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. court holds that contractual evidence is required to prove claims of automatic renewal and compounding interest. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA
Date of Institution: 28.05.2019
Date of final hearing: 28.04.2026
Date of pronouncement: 02.06.2026
First Appeal No.519 of 2019
IN THE MATTER OF:-
Smt. Raj Rani wife of Sh. Vijay Kumar, Daughter of Sh. Tara Chand, R/o H. No.
375/14, Sargodha Colony, Jakholi Adda, Jind Road, Kaithal, Distt. Kaithal.
....Appellant
Versus
The Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, Near Jai Parkash Hospital, Kaithal Road,
Kaithal, District Kaithal.
…..Respondent
CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER
Present: Mr. Dharampal proxy counsel Mr. Lajpat Sharma, counsel for the
appellant.
Mr. Umang Khosla, counsel for respondent through V.C.
ORDER
PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Delay of 01 days in filing of present appeal stands condoned for the reasons
mentioned in application seeking condonation of delay.
2. Unsuccessful complainant is in appeal. Challenge in this Appeal No.519 of
2019 has been invited to legality of order dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (In short “District Consumer
Commission”) in complaint case No.200 of 2018, vide which her complaint has been
dismissed.
3. Factual matrix: Complainant has deposited Rs.1.00 lac through FDR vide
Policy No.VB-2000/VSU No.002083 dated 26.11.2012 at the rate of 6.25% p.a.
interest. It was told by officials of OP that the FDR will be renewed every year on
the same terms and conditions and complainant will get compounding interest on
the same and the interest will be added on the said amount upon last balance of the
policy becoming principal and the same will be carried forward for the next renewal
of the FDR. Upon the assurance of OP, complainant never visited the office of OP.
Complainant was in need of money and approached the OP regarding withdrawal of
FDR, then she came know that OP has awarded only simple interest rate that too
would be paid if complainant will renew the said FDR. The FDR of complainant was
renewed upto 2008 only by the bank at its own but the interest was much less even
after charging the simple interest. Complainant made several requests to OP to pay
her the compounding interest but they did not pay any heed to her request. As per
plea, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.
4. Upon notice, OP filed its reply and submitted that the FDR was not auto
renewal and the same has not been renewed by the complainant after the year
2008. Complainant is not entitled for any compound interest. As per guidelines of
Reserve Bank of India vide letter dated 07.06.2018 and circular dated 14.06.2014
wherein Reserve Bank had specified that the rate of interest payable by banks to the
depositors/claimants on the unclaimed interest bearing deposit amount transferred
to the DEA fund shall be 4% simple interest per annum until further notice. OP has
rightly calculated simple interest from the date of unclaimed interest as per rules and
regulations of RBI. As per plea, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
5. Parties led their respective evidence oral as well as documentary. On
analyzing the same; complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated
25.04.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Commission, Kaithal, thereby
giving rise to filing of this appeal by complainant.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able
assistant this Commission has examined and perused the entire record as well as
the original record of learned District Commission including whatever evidence has
been led on behalf of the parties.
7. Admittedly, appellant had deposited Rs.1.00 in the shape of FDR dated
26.11.2002 and the rate of interest was fixed as 6.25% p.a. Date of maturity of said
FDR was 26.1
