- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against order dated 26.08.2006 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called as "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 162/ 2006, whereby the complaint of the appellant alleging deficiency in service against respondent and praying for grant of compensation of Rs. 30,000/ - and also seeking relief for renewal of Fixed Deposit with interest @ 13% p.a. from the date when it had become matured; was dismissed.
(2.) INDISPUTABLY , the appellant herein deposited Rs. 10,000/ - on 23.01.1987 for five years in Fixed Deposit with rate of interest @ 11% .The Fixed Deposit was to be matured on 23.01.1992. As per case of the complainant, in the meantime, in the month of June, 1988, Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi, has conducted a raid at the residence of the appellant and seized Fixed Deposit Receipts along with other documents from her residence. After investigation, in the month of November, 2002, the Fixed Deposit Receipts, were returned by the Central Bureau of Investigation, Ranchi to the appellant. Then, she presented it before the, Bank for renewal and prayed that interest prevailing in the year 1992, be provided for the intervening period and the F.D. be renewed with that interest. That prayer was not allowed by the respondent Bank, so a consumer complaint was filed before the District Forum. In reply of which, the respondent Bank has averred that the appellant had never prayed for renewal of F.D. in the year 1992 and had not informed the Bank that the original FDR. was seized by the C.B.I, Ranchi. As no request was made In the appellant for renewal of F.D., so as per prevailing rule of the Bank, at the time of request for renewal of the outstanding old F.D.R only interest at the rate of Savings Account, can be granted. At the time of renewal it was done by the respondent Bank and no deficiency in service was committed. It has also been averred that the complaint has been filed after prescribed period of limitation of filing complaint before the District Forum from the date of cause of action.
(3.) DISTRICT Forum, in the impugned order has observed that the complaint is within limitation, but the allegations of deficiency in service, was not found proved and therefore, complaint was dismissed. We have heard arguments of both parties and perused the record of the District Forum as well as documents, which have been filed today by the appellant;