UCO BANK Vs. K K RAIZADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal, filed by the appellant under Sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is directed against order dated 10.5.2000, passed by District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate, Delhi in Complaint Case No.1168/2000 - entitled Shri K. K. Raizada and Anr. V/s. The Manager, UCO Bank and Anr.

(2.) The facts, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, lie in a narrow compass. The respondents Shri K. K. Raizada and Smt. Rajkumari had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Act before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. In the complaint filed by the respondents it was stated that the appellant bank had issued two FDRs each for Rs.25,000/-, both dated 26.9.1989 in favour of the respondents. The above said FDRs issued by the appellant were to mature on 25.9.1990. It was stated that the respondents had stood surety for Rs.50,000/- in a Criminal Case - entitled Enforcement V/s. S. Raizada, which was pending in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi and an endorsement to that effect was made by the Court on both the FDs. It was stated that after the date of maturity, the respondents approached the appellant for the renewal of the above said FDRs on 7.11.1990 for a period of 3 years but the functionaries of the appellant refused to renew the same on the ground that for the purpose of renewal instruction had to be sought from the concerned Court but the Court, by an oral order, refused to entertain the request made by the respondents. It was stated that the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi forfeited the Surety Bond and directed the appellant Bank to deposit the amount of FDRs, amounting to Rs.50,000/- with the Court. It was stated that in compliance with the orders of the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi dated 9.8.1994 (photocopy at page 36 of the paper book), the appellant Bank deposited the sum of Rs.50,000/- in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. Thereafter the appellant Bank also paid a sum of Rs.4,655/- as interest on the above said FDRs for the period from 26.9.1989 to 26.9.1990 to the respondents. The grievance of the respondents in the complaint filed by them before the District Forum, in nut shell, was that no interest in respect of the above FDRs had been paid to them from 26.9.1990 to 26.9.1994, the date on which the amount of FDRs was deposited in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi by the appellant Bank. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, it was prayed by the respondents that the appellant be directed to pay interest in respect of the above said two FDRs from 26.9.1990 to 26.9.1994 @ 18% p. a. compounded quarterly. The respondents had also prayed for grant of compensation to the extent of Rs.50,000/-.

(3.) The claim of the respondent in the District Forum was resisted by the appellant. In the reply/written version, filed on behalf of the appellant, the appellant had taken certain preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondents. On merits, while admitting the issue of the two FDRs in favour of the respondents and payment of interest in respect of the said Fixed Deposit Receipts upto 26.9.1990, it was stated that the appellant Bank was not liable to pay any interest on the above said Fixed Deposit Receipts as the same were not got renewed beyond 26.9.1990. Denying each and every allegation it was stated in the reply/written version that the complaint filed by the respondents deserve to be dismissed with heavy cost.