Nand Lal Arora vs Branch Manager, Uco Bank

SH . Nand Lal Arora, Complainant, invested a sum of Rs.10,000/ - in a Fixed Deposit in the name of Bhavya, a minor. The said Fixed Deposit was to mature on 13.02.2010. According to the Complainant, he went to the Branch Manager, UCO Bank, Mandi, H.P. OP -1. Other functionaries of the Bank are arrayed as OP -2 and 3in the original complaint. Sh. Nand Lal asked them to renew the said Fixed Deposit for one more year. The Bank retained the Fixed Deposit Receipt and did not return it to the Complainant on the plea that the record was not available. Legal notice was given to the Bank on 04.05.2013, but, that did not evoke any response. Thereafter, this case was filed before the District Forum.

DURING the pendency of the complaint, the OPs sent a cheque of Rs.33,503/ - on account of money due on the FDR, in question, on 19.06.2013. The case of the OPs is a wee bit different. It is averred that Sh. Nand Lal, Respondent, had approached the Bank in June, 2012 for renewal of FDR. It transpired then, that the minor Bhavya had attained majority by that time. The Complainant was asked to give proof of identification of the FDR holder. The OP contended that the Complainant left the FDR with them, but did not produce the requisite evidence.

THE District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission reversed the same and dismissed the complaint. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the Petitioner was paid simple interest after the maturity of the FDR. He contended that interest should be enhanced and the complainant be given the compensation for negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of OP Bank.

I am unable to locate any substance in these arguments. There is no evidence which may go to show that the Complainant had produced any evidence, as demanded by the Bank. He could not produce any letter of authority to show that he was authorised to deal with the above said FDR. Even if the FDR is to be renewed, it required the necessary authorization. The Bank paid the FDR amount promptly, when the case was fixed before the consumer court. No documents, whatsoever, saw the light of the day. The case of the OPs is supported by the affidavit of the Manager of the concerned Branch of the OPs. The order passed by the State Commission does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. The Revision Petition is lame of strength and, therefore, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.