BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 21st day of October, 2008
C.C.No. 121/07
Between:
M.V.S.Prasad Rao, Represented by his General Power of Attorney M. Malyadri, S/o. M. Kondaiah,
Divisional Engineer, BSNL, Gudur, Nellore District. … Complainant
Versus
Andhra Bank, Represented by its Branch Manager,
N.R.Peta, Kurnool. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Chand Basha, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.121/07
1. This case of the authorized power of attorney of complainant is filed U/S 12 and 13 of C.P.Act seeking direction on to the opposite party to issue renewed deposit receipt in the place of surrendered deposit receipt No.AB/Com / A 877539 dated 17-1-2003 for Rs.1,39,057/- along with cumulative interest from date of surrender till the issual of renewed deposit receipt and damages of Rs.70,000/- and cost of the case alleging on surrender of two fixed deposit receipts by M.V.S. Prasad Rao the son of general power of attorney the opposite party issued two fresh deposit receipts Nos AB/Com / A 877539 dated 17-1-2003 and AB/Com/A 877578 dated 30-1-2003 for sum of Rs.1,24,052/- and Rs.1,26,341/- under account Nos.20020002 and 20020003 respectively and on the surrender of those two F.D receipts on 5—1-2005 through courier for their renewal to the opposite party, the latter renewed the deposit receipt No.AB/ Com/A 877578 only vide renewed deposit receipt No.AB/Com/Snsp / F No.0321813 dated 9-1-2006 for Rs.1,58,222/- only omitting the renewal of the F.D.R. sought on AB / Com/A 877539 and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite party vide letters dated 7-2-2005 , 28-3-2005 , 19-5-2005 and the request for issual of renewed deposit receipt was not complied by the opposite party . On the incorrect reply of D.G.M. vide letter dated 13-3-2006 that two fixed deposits were issued wrongly instead of one F.D. and it was rectified by issual of one F.D only the complainant preferred complaint to the Banking Ombudsman , R.B.I., Hyderabad and the latter vide its letter dated 23-6-2006 gave a finding as to no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. As the acts of the opposite party in not issuing on incorrect grounds the renewed F.D on surrender of F.D.No.AB/Com/A 877539 dated 17-1-2003 maturing on 30-12-2004 is amounting to deficiency this case originated.
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party caused its appearance through its counsel and contested the case filling written version denying
the liability to the complainants claim and seeking dismissal of the complaint for want of proper cause of action and any deficiency on its part .
3. The written version of the opposite party besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and requiring strict proof of complaint averments alleges falsity in complaint averments as misconceived . It alleges deposit on 16-7-1999 an amount of Rs.86,000/- originally by the complainant for a period of 12 months w.e.f 30-6-1999 for a maturity value of Rs.96,325/- on to 30-6-2000 and the said deposit receipt was again renewed on mature dated for 15 months for a maturity value of Rs.1,10,315/- on to 30-9-2001. Again the said F.D.R. was put to renewal on the date of its maturity for a further period of 15 months for a maturity amount of Rs.1,26,341/- by 30-12-2002 . When the said F.D maturing on 30-12-2002 for Rs.1,26,341/- was submitted for renewal on 17-1-2003 by mistake it was renewed for Rs.1,24,052/- vide F.D.R.No. 877539 instead of for a matured amount of Rs. 1,26,341/- and on realization of said mistake on 30-1-2003 a fixed deposit receipt No. 877578 dated 30-1-2003 was issued for correct amount of Rs.1,26,341/- for a period of 24 months and sent to the complainant without ensuring the return of the F.D.R. No.877539 i.e., the alleged earlier F.D.R issued for in correct amount . The complainant not returning the said incorrectly issued F.D.R taken undue advantage of it setting up a false claim and the Banking Ombudsman also satisfied of the bonafidees of the opposite party in this regard and falsity in the claim of the complainant rejecting the complaint of complainant and so seeks dismissal of the complaint for want of any deficiency on the part of the opposite party making it liable to the complainants claim.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainants side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A14 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of its defence ..
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency on the part of the opposite party creating any liability of the opposite party for the complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is the registered general power of attorney dated 11-6-1998 executed by M.V.S.Prasad Rao infavour of his father M. Malayadhri for representing him in all matters relating to him . The genuineness of said Ex.A1 being not questioned by the opposite party it is requiring any further proof for its consideration in favour of complainant .
7. The Ex.A13 and A14 corroborates the fact of the complaint averments as to issual of said F.D.Rs on respective dates of 17-1-2003 and 30-1-2003 respectively . The Ex.B1 ledger view of account of M.V.S.Prasad Rao by itself is not intelligible enough to make out the contentions of the opposite party as to Ex.A13 and 14 . Nor the opposite party has placed any such cogent material record in substantiation of its alleged story of alleged successive renewals and alleged mistaken issual of F.D.. Further the conduct of the opposite party appears to be very strange in alleged issuing of fresh F.D.R for correct amount in the place of F.D.R earlier issued for incorrect amount without seeking its return from the complainant before delivering the alleged fresh F.D.R for correct amount , when it has conscious of its committing mistake in said earlier F.D.R and issual of fresh F.D.R for correct amount . Nor there appears any correspondence from the opposite party to the complainant seeking the return of the so called earlier F.D.R issued for in correct amount , to believe the truth in said defence of the opposite party .
8. The observations of Banking Ombudsman Hyderabad in Ex.A10 and A11 as to no deficiencies of the opposite party in this regard is remaining with any material bearing on this case for want of said record which the Banking Ombudsman taken into account for consideration of the complainants grievances.
9. If there is any truth in the opposite party contentions as to mistaken issual of F.D.R No.877539 for incorrect amount and in lieu of it the F.D.R.No.877578 dated 30-1-2003 was issued for correct amount , the opposite party would have properly responded to the complainant with said fact when the renewal of said F.D.Rs. Nos. 877578 and 877539 were sought for renewal by the complainant vide Ex.A2 or atleast would have placed for consideration the letter dated 30-1-2005 alleged in Ex.A3 letter of the complainant , to under stand its stand in not renewing the F.D.No.877539 alleged in Ex.A4 .If there is any bonafidees in the contentions of the opposite party there would have been proper response to Ex.A4 of the complainant which reiterates its complaint of non renewal of F.D.No.877539 .
10. The Ex.A5 letter dated 5-4-2005 and E.xA6 letter dated 12-4-2005 also does not take any mention of opposite party defence as to alleged issual of earlier F.D.R for incorrect amount and the issual of fresh F.D.R for correct amount in the place of the earlier . Nor there appears any proper response of the opposite party to the Ex.A7 letter dated 19-5-2005 of the complainant depicting correct state of affairs and contradicting the material alleged there in. The Ex.A8 clearly denies the alleged retention of bond by the complainant on the reason that no bank regulations will permit to withdraw renew without surrender of the earlier bond .
11. Even though the Ex.A9 letter dated 13-3-2006 addressed to complainant takes the mention of in advertence issual of F.D.R for a lesser amount on 17-1-2003 , for want of any cogent material supporting said contentions , the said mere recital in Ex.A9 as to in advertence issual of earlier bond remains of any avail to the defence of the opposite party especially when the grievance of the complainant as to non renewal of the bond remained consistent in Ex.A10 even before the Banking Ombudsman .
12. Hence in the said circumstances there appears no much force in the defence of the opposite party as to the excuse in not considering the request of the complainant for renewal of F.D.R.No.AB/Com/A 877539 dated 17-1-2003 taken for Rs.1,39,057 /- and so the said conduct of the opposite party is amounting to not only deficiency of service but also sufficient to cause mental agony to complainant besides to the cost of the case as complainant being driven to the forum for redressal of its just consumer grievances.
13. Consequently, there being bonafidess in the complainants case and claim at the liability of the opposite party , the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party to issue to the complainant the renewal receipt in the place of surrendered deposit receipt No. AB/Com / 877539 dated 17-1-2003 as requested in the Ex.A2 letter and pay the accrued mature amount with governing bank rate of interest from the date of its maturity and Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of this case within a month of the receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite party with an interest 12 % p.a from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 21st day of October, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. General Power of Attorney (registered) dated 11-6-1998.
Ex.A2. Cover letter dated nil of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A3. Letter dated 7-2-2005 of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 28-3-2005 of complainant to Deputy General
Manger Regional Office, Bellary Road.
Ex.A5. Ledger extract of Lr.No.884/38/004 dated 5-4-2005 of
Opposite party regarding the account of complainant.
Ex.A6. Letter dated 12-4-2005 of OP to complainant.
Ex.A7. Letter dated 19-5-2005 of complainant to OP along with
Courier receipt.
Ex.A8. Letter dated 10-1-2006 of complainant to Deputy General
Manager, Andhra Bank, Kurnool.
Ex.A9. Letter dated 13-3-2006 to complainant .
Ex.A10. Letter dated 7-3-2006 of complainant to Banking Ombudsman.
Ex.A11. Orders of Banking Ombudsman dated 23-6-2006.
Ex.A12. Bank pass book A/c NRE 32 of MVS Prasad Rao.
Ex.A13. Deposit receipt dated 17-1-2008.
Ex.A14. Deposit receipt dated 30-1-2003.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Computer extract of ledger view dated 22-5-2008 as to 17-1-2003 and BO.1.03 of MVS Prasad Rao.
Ex.B2. Transaction query dated 22-5-2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
