ROSHINI GEORGE Vs. ROSHINI GEORGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, claiming a total sum of Rs.35,78,370/-, against the opposite party, leveling, alleging, negligent act, as well as deficiency in service.

(2.) Facts necessary for the disposal of this case:- The complainant was having with the opposite party, a Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing No.132285 for Rs.1,50,000/-, dated 16.08.99, having maturity period of three years. At the time of maturity, the complainant informed the opposite party and handed over the matured FDR, to them for renewal, but the same was not renewed, returned, despite number of requests and letters. Because of the fact, the opposite party bank failed to realize their mistake, the complainant had to foreclose all the FDRs, as described in Document No.5 with the opposite party, resulting heavy loss of interest of Rs.31,72, 164/-.

(3.) Upon, refusal to renew the FDR, the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman, and they have also dismissed the complaint on 22.12.2004, as if, the complainant has not proved the cash deposit of Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, the opposite party had committed deficiency of service, in failing not only to renew the FDR dated 16.08.99 on surrender, but also mishandling the situation, causing huge loss of interest, resulting foreclosure of the FDRS. Hence, a complaint is filed for the relief, as detailed in last paragraph of the complaint.