The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hooghly, West Bengal, has held UCO Bank liable for deficiency in services. The bank failed to pay the security amount even after 21 years of its maturing.
Background of the Case
The complainants in this case were account holders with UCO Bank who previously held a locker. As part of the locker opening process, the complainants purchased a Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme certificate worth Rs. 25,000/-, which matured on December 2, 2003, and served as security for the locker. The complainants informed the branch manager in writing about their intention to close the locker. However, they did not withdraw or encash the matured deposit certificate, leaving the amount with the bank. Despite repeated attempts to retrieve the matured value of the certificate, the complainants were continually stalled by the branch manager.
Complaint and Response
The complainants wrote a complaint to the branch manager, which was acknowledged by the bank. The chief manager of the bank responded, stating their inability to determine the current status of the deposit and their inability to pursue the matter further. The complainants then contacted the zonal manager for clarity on the certificate’s status and the return of its matured value. However, they did not receive a satisfactory response. As a result, the complainants lodged a formal complaint with the banking ombudsman, detailing the irregularities concerning their deposit under the Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme.
Ombudsman’s Response and Consumer Complaint
After nearly seven months of silence, the banking ombudsman informed the complainants via email that the bank claimed to have paid the deposit proceeds, although no supporting documentation was provided due to the passage of 14 years. The ombudsman closed the case. Feeling aggrieved, the complainants filed a consumer complaint against the bank with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hooghly, West Bengal.
Bank’s Defense and Commission’s Decision
In its defense, the bank argued that the complainants only initiated legal action in 2018 to falsely establish the timeliness of their complaint. The bank also claimed that the complainants failed to provide evidence or documents proving that their grievances were raised within two years of closing the locker account. The deposit matured on December 2, 2003, and was closed on February 27, 2004, with the complainants only raising the issue 15 years later.
However, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission noted that under Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a complaint can be entertained even after two years if the complainant shows sufficient reason for the delay. The commission held that there was a valid cause of action, and under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the complainants were considered consumers. The commission also noted that the complainants provided affidavits and supporting documents proving that the fixed deposit under the Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme was not paid despite maturing on December 2, 2003, and being used as security for the locker. The bank failed to produce any evidence showing that the matured value was credited or paid to the complainants. Therefore, the commission held the bank liable for deficiency in services and directed it to pay the amount of the fixed deposit scheme with interest to the complainants. Additionally, the bank was ordered to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainants along with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.
In conclusion, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Hooghly, West Bengal, held UCO Bank liable for deficiency in services for failing to pay the security amount even after 21 years of its maturing. The bank was directed to pay the amount of the fixed deposit scheme with interest to the complainants, along with compensation and litigation costs.
