Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 20th day of April, 2004
C.D.No.179/2003
K.Padma,
W/o Late K.Jaya Rao,
A.P.Transco Electrical Department Central Office,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his Counsel
Sri.T.Sreenivasulu, Advocate.
-Vs-
- The Managing Director,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Hyderabad. . . . Opposite party
- The Regional Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Tirupathi.
- The Manager,
State Bank of Hyderabad,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite parties 2&3 represented by his
Counsel Sri.S.viswanatha Reddy, Advocate
O R D E R
(As per Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy Member)
1. This Consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under Sections 11 and 12 of C.P. Act 1986, seeking a direction to the opposite parties to refund the fee RS.160/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the complaint, Rs.50,000/- towards the mental agony and costs of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that the complainant was old Account holder in the opposite parties institution, 1st account No.4714 and (New) second State Bank Account No.01190006809 dated 23-06-2000 and this opposite parties Institution was run by the R.B.I. Further on perusal of the complaint, the averments of the complaint were not clear and one could not follow the real grievance of the complainant, only the prayer part of the complaint has to be taken into the consideration and the same has to be appreciated in the light of the case, whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
3. The complainant besides filing a sworn affidavit in reiteration of the complaint averments relies upon the documentary record which is marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and the complainant also filed third party affidavit for its appreciation.
4. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this case the opposite party No.3 made his appearance and filed its written version and the opposite parties 1&2 adopted that of the opposite party No.3 written version. The written version of the opposite party No.3 besides denying the justness and maintainability of the complainant’s case requires the strict proof of the complaint averments which are not admitted by it. Even though it admits that the complainant is holding State Bank Account bearing Old No.4741 and present No.01190006809 and at present either the complainant or her minor son are having any F.D. worth of Rs.8,523/- with this opposite party No.3 Bank and the same was already paid to the complainant and it is not proper on the part of the complainant to allege that the opposite party No.3 Bank has not paid interest at the rate of 24% per annum on her F.D. Amount and the same has caused damage of Rs.50,000/- to her. The R.B.I Rules are not permitting to any Nationalized Banks to pay the Fixed Deposits with 24% per annum and there was no such agreement between the complainant and the opposite parties. The opposite party No.3 Bank has sent reply notice dated 29-09-2003 to her Advocate informing the real facts concerned to the complainant and also she has given letter dated 26-09-2003 stating that she has received entire F.D. Amount of Rs.8,523/- of the F.D. Receipt No.0265042 concerned to her minor son and also stated that she has withdrawn the complaint dated 24-09-2003 given by her and the plea of the complainant is that the opposite party No.3 Bank not cared for her legal notice dated 24-09-2003 shall not arise. The real fact is that on her own requisition letter duplicate pass book has been issued for her State Bank Account bearing No.01190006809 with old entries. The opposite party No.3 Bank has issued duplicate pass book by entering all old transactions concerned to her S.B. account with 7 pages. As per the rules and regulations of the Bank if one customer wants a duplicate pass book with only latest transactions the Bank will charge only Rs.20/-. If the customer wants with old transactions the Bank has to charge Rs.20/- per each page. Hence the Bank has collected Rs.140/- towards old transactions with 7 pages and rs.20/- for issuing a duplicate pass book with one lates transaction. Hence the Bank has charged Rs.160/- towards issuing the duplicate pass book with old transactions. Hence it is not excessive and it will not cause any mental agony of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Hence the complainant shall not entitle for Rs.160/- which was failed to opposite party No.3 Bank for the said purpose. Hence the above complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
5. The opposite parties has taken on reliance besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.3 Bank on documentary record which is marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 and the opposite parties also served the interrogatories to the complainant by the opposite parties counsel, but no response from the complainant’s side.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any case of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, in refund of the amount claimed by the complainant and of her entitleness to the reliefs claimed?
7. The Ex.A1 is the Xerox office copy of the letter dated 17-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the S.B.H., Kurnool. The Ex.A2 is the legal notice dated 24-09-2003 issued by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite parties. The Ex.A3 is the counter foil dated 13-10-2003 as to the payment of Rs.160/- by the complainant for issuing of the duplicate pass book and the statement of the Accounts of the State Bank Account No.01190006809. The Ex.A4 is the duplicate pass book No.01190006809 of the complainant issued by the opposite party No.3 Bank and the Ex.A5 is the bunch of the 7 pages of the ledger extracts (Xerox copies) of the complainant. The fact of the Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 were not rebutted by the opposite parties. Hence there is no need of further appreciation of the above said facts.
8. The Ex.B1 is the original discharged short term deposit No.ST/4-0265042 dated 30-06-2003 of the complainant. The Ex.B2 is the letter dated 23-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Manager, S.B.H., Kurnool requesting him to issue pass book No.01190006809 and manual entries since 1997 to 2003 i.e., up to 23-09-2003. The Ex.B3 is the Xerox copy of the letter (Without date) addressed by the complainant to the Manager, S.B.H., Kurnool in which the complainant requested to issue duplicate pass book No.01190006809 with counter foils. The Ex.B4 is the Xerox copy of the rules of the book let on service charges (Chapter 7 Miscellaneous) wherein it clearly mentioned that the rates that are chargeable for issue of the duplicate pass book and the ledger extracts, i.e., for issue of the duplicate pass book is Rs.20/- and for each page of the ledger extract is Rs.20/-. As per this rules of the opposite party No.3 Bank as admitted by the complainant through Ex.A3 to Ex.A5 there appears any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.3 Bank. The Ex.B5 is the office copy f the letter dated 29-09-2003 addressed by the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.3 to the counsel of the complainant wherein he Bank informed to the complainant’s counsel letter dated 24-09-2003 that the F.D. Amount of the complainant has been paid on 26-09-2003. The Ex.B6 is the postal acknowledgement in token of the receipt of the Ex.B5. The Ex.B7 is the letter dated 26-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.3 Bank, Kurnool requesting him to pay the above said F.D. Amount of her elder son, Sandeep on 26-09-2003. The Ex.B8 is the letter dated 26-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Branch Manager of the opposite party No.3 Bank, Kurnool in token of the receipt of the proceeds of her special TDR No.0265042 dated 30-06-2003 due on 13-05-2005 on pre mature payment on 26-09-2003 and further she informed in it that her complaint dated 24-09-2003 may be treated a closed. As seen from the above facts and cogent material, there appears no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.
9. In the result, and sum of the above discussion the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 20th day of April, 2004.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:- Nill For the opposite parties:- Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Xerox copy of letter dated 17-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool.
Ex.A2 Legal notice dated 24-09-2003 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties.
Ex.A3 Counter foil dated 13-10-2003 as to the payment of Rs.160/-.
Ex.A4 Pass book of the complainant.
Ex.A5 Bunch of seven pages of ledger extract of the complainant.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Short term deposit receipt No.ST/4-0265042 dated 30-06-2003 of the complainant.
Ex.B2 Letter dated 23-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool.
Ex.B3 Letter addressed by the complainant to the Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool
Ex.B4 Rules booklet on service charges (Chapter 7 Miscellaneous).
Ex.B5 Letter dated 29-09-2003 addressed by T.Sreenivasulu by the Branch Manager.
Ex.B6 Postal Acknowledgement for receipt of Ex.B5.
Ex.B7 Letter dated 26-09-2003 addressed by complainant to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool.
Ex.B8 Letter dated 26-09-2003 addressed by the complainant to the Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Kurnool.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
