Baldev Singh Sekhon, Presiding Member.
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (in short œDistrict Forum?), vide which his complaint against the respondents/opposite parties was dismissed.
2. The facts, as necessary for the disposal of this appeal, are that the complainant, alongwith his wife, Manjit Kaur, was holding a joint saving bank account No.8538/17 with opposite party No.1. A joint FDR No.359715 for Rs.60,000/- was also got obtained having maturity date 24.6.1993. He got this FDR renewed on 30.6.1993 for next six months with effect from 24.6.1993. The joint holder of the FDR, Manjit Kaur died on 12.5.2000. The case of the complainant is that he was working in the Punjab Police, and therefore, could not contact opposite party No.1 for renewal/withdrawal of the maturity proceeds on 24.12.1993. He contacted the opposite parties for release of the payment on 12.10.2012 with a copy of the FDR which he came across accidentally while searching some old documents. The opposite parties were, therefore, liable to make payment of the said FDR alongwith interest as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India (in short œRBI?). When the opposite parties failed to release its proceeds, a legal notice dated 18.3.2013 was served upon them with no positive response. Hence, he filed the present complaint seeking directions to the opposite parties to release payment of FDR alongwith up to date interest besides costs and compensation.
3. The opposite parties, in their written reply, pleaded that the said FDR stood paid but its record could not be made available as the bank does not keep any such records of the paid/closed accounts for more than 10 years in accordance of the banks policy framed as per the guidelines of the RBI. The complainant had not produced the original FDR, which further strengthened the contention that FDR stood paid. All efforts were made to trace the FDR account but with no success. Had the FDR amount been left unpaid, the same could have been traced in the outstanding overdue accounts and the present position indicated that the same stood paid. But the confirmation of its exact date of payment was not available due to the non-availability of the record. The opposite parties bank also placed on record the head office circular on the subject of œPreservation of Old Records?, in support of their version that the relevant records stood destroyed.
4. The parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and the District Forum, after going through the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record, dismissed the complaint.
5. Aggrieved by this order, the complainant has come up in appeal on the ground that the District Forum decided the complaint on the basis of presumption and assumption. It has not appreciated the facts that the opposite parties had not brought on record even an iota of evidence to show that the maturity value of the FDR was actually received by the complainant. He had brought on record a number of documents which showed that the maturity value of the FDR was still unpaid. But the opposite parties are taking undue advantage of loss of original record and denying legitimate value of the FDR by saying that its maturity value already stood paid.
6. We have thoroughly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainant.
7. Admittedly, the FDR, in question, matured on 24.12.1993 and the complainant slept over the matter for almost 20 years. He put up his claim for release of the matured amount of the FDR, alongwith up to date interest, on the basis of photocopy of the FDR (Ex.C-5). Evidently, this FDR was made in the name of Smt.Manjit Kaur jointly with complainant, Dalbir Singh. The complainant has brought on record the passbook of his saving bank account to show that this amount was never released to him. It is also admitted that the first account holder of the FDR, namely, Manjit Kaur, wife of the complainant, died on 12.5.2000. Then the amount could have been withdrawn by her being the first joint holder of FDR. The passbook of said Manjit Kaur (Ex.C-6) is only upto 24.6.1992 while Ex.C-10 is in the name of her child. Hence maturity amount could not have been reflected in these passbooks. The categoric stand of the opposite parties is that there is no record available with them to confirm if the FDR was still unpaid. In the absence of original FDR, it cannot be said that joint holders of this FDR had not received the payment of the FDR. Even if the version of the complainant is believed for the sake of argument that he had been working in the Punjab Police, and therefore, could not contact opposite party No.2 but his wife, who lived almost 7 years beyond the date of maturity and being the œfirst holder? of the joint FDR could have encashed the said FDR without even the knowledge of the complainant. Apparently, the complainant slept over the matter for a long period of 20 years. In the absence of original FDR, the payment cannot be released to the complainant without confirming that the same was not released. The opposite parties have already placed on record the circular of the bank in support of their contention that old record beyond 10 years is to be destroyed. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in not releasing the maturity amount of the FDR against the said photocopy of the FDR. A person who sleeps over his rights for such a long time cannot be provided with any relief without establishing the true facts about the documents sought to be encashed. We find no merit in the arguments put forward by the complainant.
8. In view of the above discussion and findings, the appeal of the appellant/complainant is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.
9. The arguments in the case were heard on 3.4.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.