BEENA THAKUR Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. R.S. Thakur, authorised agent of the appellant Smt. Beena Thakur and have perused the impugned order dated 17.11.2003 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -II [for short hereinafter referred to as the District Forum] in Complaint Case No. 816 of 2002.

(2.) THE District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded interest on the amount of the Fixed Deposit Receipt (for short hereinafter referred to as FDR) for a period of one month and eighteen days w.e.f. 24.7.2001 to 11.9.2001 when the payment was actually made and also awarded compensation of a sum of Rs. 500/ - besides litigation costs of Rs. 500/ -.

(3.) MR . R.S. Thakur, authorised agent of the appellant contended that the District Forum committed an error in not awarding interest on the amount of the FDR from the date of maturity till 24.7.2001 when she presented the FDR to the respondent -Bank for encashment. The District Forum found that the plea of the respondent Bank that there was no prayer made by the holder of the FDR i.e., the appellant for renewal of the FDR beyond the period of maturity, hence, there was no obligation to pay interest to her on the amount of FDR from the date of maturity till 24.7.2001. Mr. R.S. Thakur could not point out to us any evidence showing that the appellant had in fact made any application seeking renewal of the FDR from the date of maturity. The respondent -Bank relied on Instruction No. 6 of the departmental letter No. Supersedes Marketing Communication No. 77/95, which deals with Overdue Deposits . The District Forum after extracting the said Instruction No. 6, held that the complainant failed to show that she moved any application for renewal under Clause (i) and, as such, the interest could not be awarded under Clause (ii) of the said Instruction No. 6.