S.C. Vyas, J. (President) - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 19.03.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (C.G.) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), passed in Complaint Case No. 304/2011, whereby the O.P./Bank, has been directed to pay Rs. 73,646/ - to the respondent/complainant, along with interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till date of payment and also to pay Rs. 1,000/ - as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/ - as cost of litigation. Undisputedly, the father of the respondent/complainant namely Shri Gambhir Singh Rajput, who is no more now, was a Member of "Laxmi Varsha Deposit Scheme" which was formulated and promulgated by the appellant/Bank. He became Member of this Scheme on 30.01.1996 and as per promise of the appellant/Bank, after period of 180 months, the deposited amount of Rs. 14,677/ - was to be paid in the form of maturity amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - on 29.01.2011. In the meantime, the depositor died on 21.08.2000 before completion of the Scheme. As per case of the respondent/complainant, oral information of death of the depositor was given to the appellant/Bank and then on 29.01.2011, the maturity amount was claimed from the appellant/Bank. The appellant/Bank on 05.07.2011 has merely paid Rs. 26,384/ - and the remaining amount was not paid. Then, an application was moved by the respondent/complainant before the appellant/Bank then and there immediately claiming remaining amount, but appellant/Bank had paid no heed to his application, which was amounting deficiency in service and, so, consumer complaint was filed before District Forum, claiming full amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - from the appellant/Bank against the deposit under the Scheme and compensation for mental agony.
(2.) THE appellant/Bank, in its written version has refuted the allegation of deficiency in service leveled by the respondent/complainant against it. It has been averred that on 09.03.2011 for the first time, the respondent/complainant informed the appellant/Bank that his father has died. On that date, the complainant and his brother namely Shri Taran Singh, both filed documents before appellant/Bank bearing their signatures. As complainant alone was nominee of the deceased depositor, therefore it was informed to him that the Scheme has already been closed by the appellant/Bank and then after calculation Rs. 26,384/ - was paid, which was only the payable amount. That amount was transferred in the bank account of the complainant The complainant, at that time, has not raised any objection and on the contrary filed his affidavit, in which he has accepted all liabilities in respect of the payment and certified that the aforesaid payment is appropriate. It has also been averred that the Scheme was already closed by the appellant/Bank in the month of December, 2001 with the intimation to all account holders, thus, the account holder was knowing well regarding closure of the Scheme and even then unnecessarily a false claim has been filed before District Forum. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions raised by both parties came to the conclusion that full amount of Rs. 1,00,000/ - was payable under the Scheme to the complainant and therefore, directed the appellant/Bank to pay remaining amount to the complainant, along with interest, compensation for mental agony and cost of litigation.
(3.) WE have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused record of the District Forum.;