State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Standard Chartered Bank vs Lakhwinder Singh on 31 August, 2017
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.565 of 2017
Date of institution : 27.07.2017
Date of decision : 31.08.2017
Standard Chartered Bank through its Manager Shri Anand Prakash
having its Branch Office at 360, The Mall, Amritsar.
Also at:
10, Parliament Street, New Delhi.
.......Appellant-Opposite Party
Versus
Lakhwinder Singh s/o Shri Ajaib Singh, R/o 61, Sant Chanan Singh
Colony, Opp. Park, Amritsar.
........Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
7.6.2017 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Vikrant Guleria, Advocate. MRS. KIRAN SIBAL, MEMBER:
The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/opposite party against the order dated 7.6.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by Lakhwinder Singh, respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the appellant/opposite party was directed to make the payment of FDR along with accrued rate of First Appeal No.565 of 2017 2 interest from the date of its deposit till its actual realization along with ₹2,000/- as compensation and ₹1,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum. Facts of the complaint:
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that Lakhwinder Singh, complainant, along with his wife Jasbir Kaur opened a Savings Bank account in Gandhi Bazar, Amritsar Branch of the opposite party, which subsequently merged in the present Branch of the opposite party. They deposited a sum of ₹50,000/- in the shape of Fixed Deposit Receipt with the said branch of the opposite party and the said FDR was issued on the basis of 2 in 1 Reinvestment Deposit Plan. The money in the said FDR account was never encashed either by the complainant or his wife. The date of maturity of the FDR was 6.5.1999 and since the same was under
"Reinvestment Deposit Scheme" of the Bank, the same was to be reinvested automatically till the instructions are to be given by the account holder either to get the same encashed prematurely or to get the status of the same changed. The complainant or his wife neither got the said instrument encashed prematurely nor got its status changed from Reinvestment Plan. After sometime the complainant wanted to get the said instrument i.e. FDR encashed and thus, he visited the Bank with the original FDR but the opposite party-Bank refused to encash the same. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Bank, the complaint was First Appeal No.565 of 2017 3 filed before the District Forum for payment of maturity amount along with compensation of ₹1,00,000/- for harassment as well as mental agony and ₹22,000/- as costs.
Defence of the opposite party-Bank:
4. Upon notice opposite party appeared and filed reply taking preliminary objections that FDR No.016/Q2/07918/01 had been opened with the opposite party-Bank in the name of Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur but the complaint has only been filed by Lakhwinder Singh. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. As per the Bank record, a savings bank account bearing No.016/Q2/07918 was opened in the name of Lakhwinder Singh and Jasbir Kaur jointly. The concept of 2 in 1 Reinvestment Deposit is that it is linked to a saving bank account. As per the nature of 2 in 1 account, the savings account and the deposit account are linked and whenever there is any shortfall of amount in the savings account to meet any withdrawal, the required amount is uplifted from the linked deposit and credited to the savings account to make good the shortfall. Accordingly the amount had been uplifted from the FDR account in question to meet the requirements of the saving account held in the name of complainant and Jasbir Kaur. As per opposite party Bank's archival report dated 14.10.1998, the FDR amount had become 'Nil' and subsequently marked for deletion. On merits the opposite party took up the same and similar stand. Denying all other averments made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
First Appeal No.565 of 2017 4Finding of the District Forum:
5. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party and have carefully gone through the records of the case. Contentions of the Appellant/Opposite Party:
7. It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the order passed by the District Forum is wrong and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It was a 2 in 1 Reinvestment Account. The concept of the same is that it is linked to a savings bank account. As per the nature of 2 in 1 account, the savings account and the deposit account are linked and whenever there is any shortfall of amount in the savings account to meet any withdrawal, the required amount is uplifted from the linked deposit and credited to the savings account to make good the shortfall. There is minimum balance clause and for the maintenance of savings accounts minimum balance of ₹10,000/- at a time is necessary to remain in the savings account and as and when after deducting the expenses, the amount becomes deficient, then the same is uplifted from the FDR account. So has been done in the present case. It has been further contended that the complainant never approached the Bank for a sufficient long period. The Bank continued to adopt the procedure of uplifting the required amount First Appeal No.565 of 2017 5 from the linked deposit and credit the same in the savings account to make good the shortfall. The amount against the FDR of ₹50,000/- had been uplifted from that account bearing No.016/Q2/07918/01 to meet the requirements of the savings account bearing No.016/Q2/07918 held in the name of the complainant and Jasbir Kaur. As per the Bank's archival report dated 14.10.1998, the FDR in question had been reflecting "Nil" account balance and subsequently marked for deletion. The order passed by the District Forum is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Consideration of Contentions:
8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank.
9. Learned counsel for the opposite party-Bank has failed to point out from the record of the District Forum, which was summoned by this Commission at the initial stage before issuance of notice, any document i.e. Proposal Form containing the terms and conditions of the Reinvestment Plan, which is known as 2 in 1 account and is in the nature of savings bank linked with FDR account also known as linked deposits. Unless a document is brought on record indicating the terms of the Agreement, this Commission cannot presume that the upliftment can be done without the permission of the holders of the FDR into the savings account. The Bank has not produced even any document on record to show that it had been sending the account statement of the savings bank account to the complainant, from time to time and had also informed the complainant or his wife First Appeal No.565 of 2017 6 regarding the deductions being made from the FDRs. It is settled principle of law that no one can be condemned unheard. The Bank was required to inform the account holders of the savings bank account that their savings bank account is not maintaining minimum balance and for that reason the Bank is uplifting the required amount from the FDR account, which has been consumed in this manner. It appears that the Bank has failed to inform the complainant about the non-maintenance of minimum balance in the savings bank account and also to inform the consumer regarding the uplifting of the required amount from the FDR account i.e. linked deposits.
10. In view of this, we are of the view that the opposite party-Bank has failed to comply with the minimum principle of natural justice and also failed to fulfil its obligation. Once the opposite party-Bank has failed to produce on record any document indicating the terms and conditions on the basis of which the savings bank account and the FDR account were linked, an adverse inference is to be drawn against the opposite party-Bank.
11. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the District Forum. There is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed in limine.
12. The appellant/opposite party had deposited a sum of ₹25,000/- at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the District Forum, after the expiry of 45 days of the sending of certified copy of the order to the parties. The complainant may First Appeal No.565 of 2017 7 approach the District Forum for the release of the above said amount and the District Forum may pass the appropriate order in this regard.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (MRS. KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER August 31, 2017 Bansal