Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/6/2015

1.Naryana Ashok Son of Siva Balaji - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Manager Indian bank - Opp.Party(s)

C.P.Suresh

11 Sep 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :29-01-2015

                                                                             Date of Disposal:l1-09-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the 11^th  day of   SEPTEMBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

                         Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com., B.L., LL.M., Member

 

C.C.No.6/2015

 

1.	Narayana Ashok, S/o.Sivabalaji,
2.	Jayalaxmi Chavala, W/o.Sivabalaji,   Both are residents of 3-10-86 A/2, Kotta Bazar, Kavali, Nellore District.                                                      ..… Complainants

Vs.

 

1.	The Manager, Indian Bank, Near Over Bridge,  First Floor, Kavali, Nellore District, A.P.
2.	Post Master, Head Post Office, Kavali, Nellore District.                          ..…Opposite parties

                                                             .

          This complaint coming on 30-08-2017 before us for hearing in the               presence of Sri C.P.Suresh, advocate for the complainant and                                                                      Sri P. Ramaseshaiah, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and                            Sri J.C.S. Amarnath, advocate for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

The complainants  filed this complaint against  the opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section-12  of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite party No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,277/- and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay an amount of Rs.11,828/- with interest  @ 12% p.a. from 01-04-2009 to till the date of realization and direct the opposite parties to pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- to the complainants and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

2.    The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that: the complainants jointly  took loan of Rs.37,000/- on 15-02-2006 payable  @ 8% p.a. from the opposite party by keeping their Kisanvikas Patras bonds of Rs.60,000/-. According to the norms of the 1^st opposite party  have to be taken  the amount of Rs.37,000/- out of the maturity value of the bonds with interest and return back the rest of the amounts  to the complainants.  The opposite party No.1 has taken an amount of Rs.48,172/- from the opposite party No.2 by leaving Rs.11,828/- in  2^nd opposite party  post office.  The bank  calculated interest of Rs.7,179/-  and out of the said  amount  Rs.2,706/- has been credited in the account of the complainants joint account and hence the bank has to pay an amount of Rs.1,277/- to the complainants and   as the opposite partyNo.1 has taken   Rs.48,172/-  still an amount of Rs.11,828/- lies  with the opposite party No.2.  Hence, the opposite parties have to pay a sum of Rs.13,105/- with interest @ 12% p.a.   and the costs of the complaint.

3.     The opposite party No.1 filed counter with the  following averments that: the complainants 1 and 2 jointly availed loan of Rs.37,000/- on 15-02-2006 from the opposite party No.1 against security of National Saving Certificates.  The Bank accordingly agreed and sanctioned loan of Rs.37,000/- with interest at 8% floating rate compoundable monthly rests under loan account No.540522136 in favour  of  complainants 1 and 2 on condition that the complainants 1 and 2 shall pledge National Certificate Bonds of value  Rs.30,000/-   and interest accrued an amount of Rs.14,700/- of total face value of Rs.44,700/- issued in their   favour and kept with the  bank and the said National Certificates shall be transferred in favour of  bank after effecting registration.  The complainants 1 and 2  agreed to repay loan of Rs.37,000/- with interest at 8%  compoundable monthly rests.  The details of National Certificate bonds kept by the complainants 1 and 2 under pledge with this opposite party N.S.C. Sl.No., Date of Issue, Date of Maturity, Face Value, Maturity Value, Registration Numbers  clearly shown in the  Printed Application  dated 15-02-2006 as well as schedule annexed to Deed of Agreement dated 15-02-2006 submitted to bank by the complainants 1 and 2.

The opposite party  No.1 after looking into loan account of complainants 1 and 2 as on 31-03-2007  it was ascertained that a sum of Rs.41,386/- was still due and payable by the complainants 1 and 2   as per the Statement of Account.  The complainants 1 and 2 failed and neglected to pay the outstanding balance of Rs.41,386/- inspite of repeated demands made by this opposite party.

The opposite party No.1 submits the Deed of Agreement dated 15-02-2006  clause 4  mentions “ The borrower confirms that while pledging the NSC’s, the borrower agreed that bank may encash NSC (s) on due date  and credit the same to his account and appropriate the same towards the loan liability  if the  loan liability  is not  adjusted by then”. The bank received a sum of Rs.20,000/- on 27-04-2007 from opposite party No.2 towards maturity value  of  NSC No.78CC 576443 dated 19-10-2000 due on 19-04-2007  on Redemption.  Statement of Account entry dated 27-04-2007 clearly refers to that NSC(s) proceeds of Rs.20,000/- was appropriated and adjusted by the bank to the loan account of complainants as follows a sum of  Rs.679/- was credited towards payment  of  interest by the complainants and a sum of Rs.19,321/- was credited  towards payment of Principle by the complainants.  Thus total sum ofRs.20,000/- was credited by bank on the loan account on                  27-04-2007.

The opposite party No.1 (Bank) after looking into loan account of complainants   1 and 2 as on 31-03-2009  it was ascertained that a sum of Rs.26,006/-  was still due and payable by the complainants 1 and 2 as per the  statement of account.  The complainants 1  and 2 failed  and neglected to clear the  loan arrears ever after adjustment of matured value ofRs.20,000/- relating to NSC date 19-10-2000 inspite of repeated  demands   made by this opposite party.  Further the complainants 1 and 2 have not taken necessary steps to renew the loan account in accordance    with  and  in compliance with condition No.6 mentioned in Deed of Agreement dated 05-02-2006 “The borrowers further agrees and undertakes to execute further documents   as may be found to be necessary or required by the bank to safeguard and perfect bank’s  right over the same”.  It is submitted that the complainants  have not taken such step of Renewal of Loan Account in order to protect and safeguard the remaining  two National Saving Certificates.  This opposite party is in receipt of sum of Rs.28,712/- on 31-03-2009 from opposite party No.2 towards value of two National Savings Certificate Nos.31CD 378398,  dated 24-12-2003 and  Certificate No.31 CD 378398, dated 24-12-2003  after pre-closure of the said two National Saving Certificate Bonds.  Statement of Account entry dated 31-03-2009  clearly mentions that out of  total sum of Rs.28,712/- a sum of Rs.26,006/- was credited by the bank towards full and final payment of loan arrears by the complainants  1 and 2.  Banker’s Pay Order No.536694 dated 31-03-2009 issued by  the bank  in favour  of complainants  1 and 2 for the balance amount of Rs.2,706/-.  Thus B.P.O.  was encashed by the complainants on  18-09-2009 clearly accepting the procedure   adopted by the bank.  The amount of Rs.2,706/- was credited to the Savings bank Account No.540459060  at the request of complainant and amount was drawn by the complainants on 25-09-2009. This opposite party had acted in accordance  with and in compliance with condition No.6 mentioned in Deed of Agreement                 dated 15-02-2006  that “Borrowers agrees that Bank shall be at liberty to do anything as regards NSC(s)  to protect and perfect Bank’s right in the same.

This opposite party  No.1 submit that  complainants  1 and 2  are not entitled to claim Rs.1,277/- with interest   at 12% p.a. against the bank and they are also not entitled to claim Rs.5,000/- towards costs from the bank there is no deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party (Bank), opposite party No.1 submits for the dismissal of the complaint with  costs.

4.       The opposite party No.2 filed written version with the following averments  that:  the   complainants had purchased three KVP certificates for Rs.10,000/- on 19-10-2000 and  for Rs.20,000/- on 24-12-2003  totaling to Rs.30,000/-.  All the three certificates amounting to Rs.30,000/- were pledged  in favour of the 1^st opposite party on  15-12-2006.  As the first certificate purchased on 19-10-2000 was  matured on 19-04-2007,  the 1^st opposite party  issued a letter dated 27-04-2007 for encashment of the said certificate and to pay the value to the bank.  Accordingly, the certificate was produced and encashed  by the 1^st opposite party being a pledgee   and the proceeds were paid  by way of cheque to the 1^st opposite party.  The remaining two certificates for the  value of Rs.20,000/- were produced and encashed prematurely by the 1^st opposite party  and the amount alongwith interest of Rs.4,356/- each was paid to the 1^st opposite party.  Hence the entire amount was paid to the 1^st opposite party who is the pledgee  of the KVP certificates.  As per Savings bank manual volume II Rule 39, the pledge is the holder of the certificates for all purposes.  The detail of payments  are furnished hereunder:

Sl.No.	Certificate No.	Date of encashment	Principle	Interest	Total
1	78CC576443	27-04-2007	10000	10000	20000
2	31CD78398	25-03-2009	10000	4356	14356
3	31CD378399	25-03-2009	10000	4356	14356

 

Thus the complainants pledged the KVP certificates   to 1^st opposite party on 15-02-2006  and the 1^st opposite party produced and encashed the amount being the pledgee of the certificates.  Hence, the question of payment of the alleged remaining  amount does not arise.  Since the loan taken by the complainant was  appropriated by the 1^st opposite party towards the loan amount was best known to the complainant and the post office has nothing to do with the pledge.

The 2^nd opposite party is not a proper and necessary party to the proceedings.  The complaint is unnecessary filed against the 2^nd opposite party.  the complaint is not maintainable and  there  are no bonafides in filing the complaint against the 2^nd  opposite party and submits for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

5.      On behalf of  the complainant  no evidence was adduced and Exs.A1 to A3 are marked.  On behalf of   opposite party No.1, the chief affidavit of R.W.1 filed  and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked and  on behalf of opposite party No.2,  the chief affidavit of R.W.2 filed and  Ex.B5 were marked.

6.     Arguments  on behalf of  learned counsels for both parties heard.

 

         7.       Written arguments on behalf of complainant and opposite parties 1 and

2 filed.

                 Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of the both parties.

 

8.    Now the points for consideration are:

1.  Whether the act of the opposite parties 1 and 2  towards complainants amounts to deficiency of service?
2. To what relief, the complainants are entitled?

 

          9.   POINT No.1:The learned counsel  for the complainant submits by  relying upon  Exs.A1 to A3 that  the complainants 1 and 2 borrowed a  sum of Rs.37,000/- on 15-02-2006 from opposite party No.1 and after  the maturity, by mortgaging the Kisan Vikas Patras bearing Nos.(1) 78 CC 576443/19-10-2000 for Rs.10,000/-, double Rs.20,000/-, (2) 31 CD  378398/24-12-2003 for Rs.10,000/-, double Rs.20,000/- and (3)  31 CD 378399/24-12-2003  for Rs.10,000/-, double Rs.20,000/- and the opposite party No.1 has to take the interest   amount only and without informing the complainants, the  opposite party  encashed   the said Kisan Vikas Patras and causes loss to the  complainant   and hence the act of the opposite parties  1 and 2  is amounts to deficiency of service and hence  they submit to  direct the opposite party No.1   to pay  an amount of Rs.1,277/-  and  Rs.11,828/- to the opposite party No.2 with interest from 01-04-2009 till the date of  payment and submits to allow the complaint by  awarding costs of Rs.5,000/-

 

          On the other hand, the learned counsel  for the opposite party No.1 submits  by relying upon  Exs.B1 to B4  that the complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.37,000/- from the opposite party No.1 by pledging the Kisan Vikas Patras which are  belonging to the complainants  and as the complainants continuously committed default in payment of the  due amount. The opposite party No.1 encashed the pledged Kisan Vikas  Patras  towards the loan amount of the complainants  and  hence as there is  no deficiency  of service by the opposite party No.1,  he submits for the dismissal of the complaint  against the opposite party No.1 with costs.

          The learned  counsel for the opposite party No.2 submits that the complainant   mortgaged his Kisan Vikas Patras at the  time of the  borrowing of money from the opposite party No.1 by pledging the Kisan Vikas Patras in opposite party No.1 bank and as the opposite party No.1 who is the pledgee   and the  services are pledged with the opposite party No.1, as per  Savings Bank manual volume – II, Rule-39,  the pledgee is the holder of  the certificates for all purposes   and as the complainants committed    default in payment of the  due amount to the opposite party No.1, the complaint filed by the complainant against  the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and submits for  dismissal of the complaint against the opposite party No.2 with costs.

          In view of the   arguments  submitted by the learned counsels  for  both parties and as seen  from the  record of Ex.B2 agreement  in between  the complainant and  the opposite party No.1 dated 15-02-2006, in page No.1 at column – 4 reads as follows: “ The  borrower confirm(s)  that while pledging the NSC(s), the borrower agreed that the Bank may encash the NSC(s)   on due date and credit the same to  his account and appropriate the same towards this loan liability if the loan liability is not adjusted by then”.

                   In Ex.B2 at page No.2 in column No.6  reads as follows: “The  borrower(s)  agree(s) that Bank  shall be at liberty to do anything as regards the  NSC(s), to protect and perfect Bank’s right  in the same.  The borrower(s)  further agree(s) and undertake(s) to grant / execute further documents as may be found to be necessary or required by the Bank to safeguard and perfect Bank’s right  over the same.  The borrower(s) agree(s) to pay  all expenses incurred by the Bank for safeguarding its  interest over the NSC(s)  and agree(s)  to make  such payment alongwith loan amount and interest on the date above mentioned for repayment of the loan.”

          As per  the contents of Ex.B2, the complainants pledged the Kisan Vikas Patras  in favour  of   opposite party No.1 as security for the loan amount borrowed by the complainants. When the  complainants committed default in payment of the due amount, the opposite party No.1 can adjust the Kisan Vikas Patras amount towards the  loan  of the complainants.

In  Charanjeet Kaur Vs. State Bank of Patiala reported in  2015 (1)CPJ 8 (NC).

 

          Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held  as follows:  “ Bank has a general lien on all forms of securities  or negotiable   instruments, deposited by  or on behalf of the customers in the ordinary course of  banking business and  such a general lien is a valuable right of the banker, judicially  recognized.  In the absence of  a contract to the contrary, the banker has a right to use the proceedings in respect of   any balance  that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of the customers debt.”

          By relying  upon the above decision,  we are of the opinion that  as the complainants deposited  Kisan Vikas Patras towards the security for the loan  amount borrowed by the complainant from opposite partyNo.1, we are of the opinion that the cancellation of Kisan Vikas Patras   and  adjusting the said  amount towards the loan amount of the complainant  is not amounts to deficiency of service.

 By relying upon the above  decision  and   the contents   of Ex.B2 agreement and the  discussion made above, we are of the opinion that  as there is no  deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 and 2 against the complainants, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed  by the complainants against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable.

In view of the above said discussion, we answered   against  the complainants and in favour of the  opposite parties 1 and 2.

 

10.   POINT No.2:In view of our answering on point No.1   against the  complainants and in favour of opposite  parties  1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   1 and 2 is not maintainable and the same has to be dismissed.

       In the result, the complaint is dismissed but in the circumstances no costs.

 

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  11^TH day of  SEPTEMBER, 2017.

 

           Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                           Sd/-

      MEMBER                                MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainants

-Nil-

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -	19-06-2015	Sri Akurati Amarnath, S/o.Venkateswarlu, Senior Manager (B.M.) Indian Bank, Kavali Branch, SPSR Nellore District. (Chief affidavit filed).
R.W.2  -	16-12-2015	Sri P. Viswanadham, S/o.P. Ramaiah, Working as Superintendent of Post Offices, Nellore (Chief affidavit filed)

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1  -	15-12-2014	Letter from complainant’s  husband Sivabalaji to the opposite parties alongwith registered post receipt.
Ex.A2  -	18-07-2013	Photostat copy of letter from opposite party No.1 to the  complainant.
Ex.A3  -	20-03-2013	Photostat copy of letter from opposite party No.1 to the  complainant.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	15-02-2006	Application  in favour of complainants.
Ex.B2  -	15-02-2006	Agreement between  complainants and the opposite party No.1
Ex.B3  -		Statement of account-Loans (GLCODE:565) in favour of complainant  and statement of account issued by opposite party No.1.
Ex.B4  -	16-06-2015	Statement of account  from 01-01-2009 to 28-02-2011.
Ex.B5  -		Copy of Pledging of Certificates as security details.

 

                                                                                                Id/-

                                                                                             PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri C.P.Suresh, Advocate, 27-5-42, 19th cross road, Balajinagar, Nellore.
2.	Sri P. Ramaseshaiah, Advocate, No.23-4-305, Mahalakshmi Temple, Aravinda Nagar Extention Nellore.
3.	Sri J.C.S. Amarnath, Advocate, Rameshreddy Nagar, Nellore.

Date when free copy was issued: