Failure To Pay Security Amount Even After 21 Years Of Its Maturing, Hooghly District Commission Holds UCO Bank Liable

Brief Facts:

The Complainants were account holders with UCO Bank and previously held a locker. While opening the locker, 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 of their inability to continue with the locker and requested its closure. Despite this, they did not withdraw or encash the matured deposit certificate which left the amount with the bank. Following the locker's closure, they repeatedly approached the Bank to retrieve the certificate's matured value but were continually stalled by the Branch Manager.

The Complainants wrote a complaint to the Branch Manager, which the Bank acknowledged. 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. Later, the Complainants contacted the Zonal Manager and sought clarity on the certificate's status and the return of its matured value. Receiving no satisfactory response, the Complainants lodged a formal complaint with the banking ombudsman detailing the irregularities concerning their deposit under the Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme.

After nearly seven months of silence, the banking ombudsman informed the Complainants via email that the Bank claimed to have paid the deposit proceeds though 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 District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, West Bengal (“District Commission”) against the bank.

In its defence, the Bank argued that the Complainants only initiated legal action in 2018 to falsely establish the timeliness of their complaint. Further, the Complainants failed to provide evidence or documents proving 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.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District 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. It held that there was a valid cause of action and, under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Complainant was a consumer.

The District Commission noted that the Complainants proved through affidavits and supporting documents that the fixed deposit under the Kuber Yojana Deposit Scheme, initiated on December 2, 2002, wasn't paid despite maturing on December 2, 2003, and being used as security for locker. It noted that the Bank failed to produce any evidence showing that the matured value was credited or paid to the Complainants.

Therefore, the District Commission held the Bank liable for deficiency in services. It directed the Bank to pay the amount of the fixed deposit scheme with interest to the Complainant. The Bank was also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainants along with litigation costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

Case Title: Manika Das and Anr. vs The Branch Manager, UCO Bank and Ors.

Case Number: CC/75/2019

Date of Pronouncement: 24th May 2024