State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sourendra Nath Dutt vs Regional Manager, Bank Of India on 31 July, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. A/1160/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 24/11/2016 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/478/2016 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Sourendra Nath Dutt 171/A, Bidhan Sarani, PS. Burtolla, Kolkata -700 006. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Regional Manager, Bank of India Regional office, 5, B.T. Maharaj Sarani, P.S.- Hare Street, Kolkata -700 001. 2. Br. Manager, Bank of India Vivekananda Br., 36/2, Vivekananda Road, P.S. Girish Park, Kolkata -700 007. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER For the Appellant: In-person/, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. PradiptaKr. Panda., Advocate Dated : 31 Jul 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 24-11-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata I (North) in C.C. No. 478/2016 whereof the complaint has been dismissed.
Briefly stated, case of the Complainant is that two term deposits worth Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- stood in the name of his uncle, Gobindo Lal Dutta, since deceased, matured on 01-07-1976 and 24-03-1981, respectively. Besides this, his deceased uncle also had a savings account with the OP bank. Father of the Complainant, i.e., Madan Mohan Dutta, since deceased, who was the executor of the will of his elder brother Lt. Gobindo Lal Dutta, by a letter 09-03-1984 asked the OP No. 2 to renew the said term deposit for another 63 months. Despite receipt of said letter the OP No. 2 did not act upon such request of Complainant's father, since deceased. On the other hand, due to pendency of probate proceeding, his father could not encash the said Term Deposits. Ultimately, the said probate proceedings reached its finality on 21-01-2000 and probate of said will was granted by the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta on 21-09-2002. Further case of the Complainant was that a notice was served upon the bank concerned by the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant on 21-10-2002 whereby the OP No. 2 was called upon to transfer the proceeds of said term deposits and SB account of Complainant's deceased uncle, together with accrued interest in favour of the Complainant. However, the OPs have not acted upon such legal notice. Personal perseverance of the matter by the Complainant too went in vain. Hence, the complaint.
Decision with reasons According to RBI Rules, one needs to renew a Term Deposit within 14 days of maturity date to get the benefit of continuation from the date of maturity. In case one fails to do so within the aforesaid period, the term deposit is treated as overdue deposit. How much one would get for such overdue deposits, entirely depends on Rules and Regulations of individual Banks because RBI has given full autonomy to individual Banks in this regard.
In the instant case, undisputedly the Term Deposits were not renewed in time, for whatever reason. In such circumstances, in accordance with prevailing banking rules, the said deposits attained overdue status. Given that the Respondent Bank pays savings bank interest in respect of overdue deposits, by offering the same to the Appellant's father, since deceased, did not show any discriminatory attitude towards him.
In fact, on closer scrutiny, we find that both the Appellant as well as his father, since deceased, was responsible in one way or the other for the present imbroglio.
From the case record of A/1010/2016, filed by this Appellant, it appears that in response to the letter written by Appellant's father, since deceased, on identical issue (i.e., renewal of term deposit), he was asked by the State Bank of India to produce succession certificate to do the needful. However, for some obscure reasons, Complainant's father did not bother to give any suitable reply to such communiqué from the side of the bank.
In this case also, I find that although the Respondents asked Ld. Advocate of Appellant's father to produce the term deposit certificates and original savings pass book to do the needful, for the reasons best known to Appellant's father, since deceased, no action was taken from his side thereafter.
Be it mentioned here that vide its letter dated 07-11-2002, the Respondent Bank gave a statement of account showing the basis of calculation of interest on such deposits. It, thus, nullify the contention of the Appellant that the Respondent did not give any statement of account.
Again, when this Appellant wrote a letter to the Respondent No. 2 on 01-09-2015, the Respondent Bank vide its letter dated 04-09-2015 asked the Appellant to visit the bank along with relevant papers. This time, the Appellant neglected to show due alacrity.
In such circumstances, the decision of the Ld. District Forum, to my mind, was fully justified. The conduct of the Appellant is highly condemnable. There are reasons to believe that, out of some distorted notions/ignorance of banking rules & regulations, the Appellant has made a mountain out of a molehill. This cannot be allowed.
The Appeal, accordingly, fails.
Hence, O R D E R E D that A/1160/2016 be and the same is dismissed being devoid of any merit. The impugned order is hereby affirmed. Parties do bear their respective costs [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER