J U D G E M E N T

1.      The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

2.      The complaint in brief is that, on 26.5.1999, the complainant deposited Rs.11,256/- with the OP No.1’s Bank under Special Deposit Scheme and it matured on 4.10.2003.   Thereafter he renewed the said deposit on 4.10.2003 to 4.10.2006, from 4.10.2006 to 4.10.2009 and then from 4.10.2009 to 4.10.2011.   Thereafter, the complainant on 4.10.2011 approached the 1^st OP along with special deposit bond and requested to refund the matured amount of Rs.38,347/-.   At that time, verifying the records, the OP-1 informed the complainant that, the amount pertaining to his deposit was credited to  S.B. Account No.62175626899 on 15.7.2011.   When the complainant questioned the OP-1 as to how he deposited the amount to the S.B. account mentioned above, even though the original deposit certificate was with him, the OP-1 informed that the previous Manager had deposited the same to somebody else’s account and he was not responsible for the same and directed the complainant to approach the court for proper relief.   The complainant had deposited his hard earned money in the OP-1’s Bank.   The OP-1’s Bank was irresponsible by transferring the said amount into somebody else’s account, thereby committed deficiency in service and caused mental agony to the complainant.    Therefore, the complaint seeking reliefs as prayed for.

3.      The OP-1 filed the written version, which is adopted by OP-2, which in brief is as follows;

                  The contents of para-1 of the complaint are admitted.   The contents of para-2 of the complaint are false, incorrect, baseless, hence denied.   It is specifically denied that, the complainant along with fixed deposit certificate asked to pay Rs.38,347/- with interest from 4.10.2011 onwards.    The contents of para-3 of the complaint are completely false, hence denied.     It is specifically denied that, the complainant enquired with OP-1 and the OP-1 informed that the then Manager had deposited the amount to other person’s account and to get the amount to approach the court.    The contents of para-4 and 5 are false, hence denied.   It is specifically denied that, the OP-1 has failed to perform his duty and made payment to another person.   The contents of para-6 and 7 are completely false and hence denied.   The OP-1 verified the  records and noticed that, the special TDR amount of Rs.37,247/- has been paid on 15.7.2011 to S.B. Account 62175626899.   The complainant and another person of similar name have kept the amount under fixed deposit at SBH, Yadgiri.   The OP-1 verified the Bank records correctly, and found that inadvertently and due to rush of work made payment of amount to Account No. 62175626899.   The act of OPs in making payment to another account is not intentional and deliberate.   Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost, in the interest of justice.

4.      The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as PW-1 and got marked 04 documents as Exh.P-1 to P-4.   The OPs as their evidence, filed one affidavit, which is marked as RW-1 and not produced any documents. 

5.      Heard the oral arguments on both sides.

6.      The points that arise for our consideration are;

1)      Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs towards him, as alleged in the complaint?

2)      Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?

3)      What order?

7.      The findings on the above points are as under;

1)      In the affirmative.

2)      Partly in the affirmative. 

3)      As per final order for the following;

:: REASONS ::

8.      Point No.1 :   

      There is no dispute with regard to the deposit of Rs.11,259/- under special TDR on 26.5.1999 by the complainant with the OPs’ Bank.   The grievance of the complainant is that when the said special TDR matured, he went to the OPs’ bank and asked to refund the matured amount of Rs.33,347/- along with interest subsequent to 4.10.2011 and produced the TDR certificate, the manager verifying the records informed that the amount pertaining to the said TDR was credited to the S.B. A/c.No.62175626899 on 15.7.2011 and as the said S.B. account does not belong to the complainant when he questioned as to how without the production of the original TDR certificate, they credited amount to somebody else’s account, the manager informed that his predecessor did it and he was not responsible for the same.

                  The OPs in the written version admitted about the crediting of the matured TDR amount of Rs.37,247/- pertaining to the complainant to                 S.B. A/c. No.62175626899 on 15.7.2011.   They gave explanation to the said lapse on their part because of similar name between the complainant and the account holder of S.B. A/c. No. 62175626899 and stated that it was not intentional or deliberate one.   However, what we would like to observe is that, before crediting the amount pertaining to the TDR belonging to the complainant, they should have verified each and every particular of the account holder like age, father’s name, address and if it tallies with the complainant’s name and address then they could have credited it to the said account of the complainant and instead of that without verifying such particulars, they credited the amount pertaining to the complainant to somebody else’s account which is a serious lapse on their part.   This amounts to deficiency in service and accordingly this point is answered in the affirmative.

9.      Point No.2 :

                  According to the complainant, he was entitled for an amount of Rs.38,347/- towards TDR which he had deposited with the OPs’ bank.   This is admitted by the OPs’ bank when they stated that they had deposited the amount of Rs.37,347/- into the Account No.62175626899.   According to the OPs’ bank, the said amount was credited to the said S.B. Account  on 15.7.2011.   The complainant is entitled for the said amount with interest from 15.7.2011 along with compensation for deficiency in service and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order.   Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.

10.  Point No.3 :-

                  As per order below;

:: ORDER ::

            The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. 

            The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.38,347/- towards TDR from OPs’ bank.

            The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on total sum of Rs.38,347/- from 15.7.2011.

            The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency in service from OPs’ bank.

            The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings from the OPs’ bank.

            OPs are given one month time from the date of this order for making payment of the above said amount.

            Intimate the parties accordingly.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 18^th day of January 2014)