JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

No one is present for the respondents - Nirmala Rani Upadhaya and Sanjeev Kumar Upadhaya. The notice sent to them by Regd. Post have been returned with the endorsement “refused to accept”. The refusal to accept the notice, when tendered by the postman, amounts to a valid service and, therefore, the respondents are deemed to have been duly served. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.      The complainants/respondent deposited three amounts, one of Rs.97,000/-, the other of Rs.91,000/- and the last of Rs.3,60,000/- with the petitioner Bank in Fixed Deposits. The first two deposits were to mature after 5 years, whereas the last deposit was to mature after one year and three months. After about four years of the deposit when the complainants approached the Bank for renewal of the Fixed Deposit of Rs.97,000/-, it was renewed for further period of 5 years from the date on which it had matured. However, when they approached the Bank for renewal of the remaining two deposits, the petitioner Bank refused to renew them from the dates on which they had matured, saying that the policy of the petitioner Bank having changed. In the meanwhile, the said deposits could not be renewed retrospectively from the date on which they had matured. Being aggrieved, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner Bank. The District Forum vide its order dated 28.10.2014 directed the petitioner Bank to renew the remaining two Fixed Deposits from the date on which they had matured and also awarded compensation quantified at Rs.3,000/- and cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/- to the complainants.

4.      Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 3.9.2015, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the Bank. Being aggrieved, the petitioner Bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

5.      A perusal of the deposits which the complainants had made with the petitioner Bank would show that the deposits which the petitioner Bank declined to renew from the date on which they had matured carried no instruction for their automatic renewal. In the absence of such an instruction, the petitioner Bank could not have automatically renewed the deposits from the date on which they had matured. Therefore, the petitioner Bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services on account of its having declined to renew the deposits from the date on which they had matured. The complainants having made deposits for a specific period, they ought to have approached the Bank immediately at the maturity of the said deposits seeking their further renewal. That admittedly was not done. Therefore, the petitioner Bank was justified in law in refusing to renew the Fixed Deposits from the date on which they had matured. Though in case of first deposit, the Bank renewed the deposit from a retrospective date, that was done as per its policy applicable at that time. The policy having later changed, and there being no prior instruction to