R.Vijayakumar, Member
This is a remanded case posted before the Forum by a common judgment of CDRC dated 12/08/2010 in Appeal No.115/10 and 389/10. The original complaint was filed for getting a direction to the opposite party to return the amount covered by the term deposit with interest. The complainant further prayed for compensation Rs.50,000/- and cost.
The complainant’s case is that he had made a term deposit for Rs.12,500/- for 63 months bearing interest at the rate of 12% vide receipt no.162469 dated 15/09/1978. The interest was to be remitted on a monthly basis in his SB account. On maturity the complainant demanded for the deposited amount
(2)
But the opposite party refused his demand for the reason that money suit is pending against the depositors. There after the complainant’s again approached the opposite party through the (State Bank of India) Kollam for his deposit and interest there on. His demand was rejected again stating that money suit is initiated against the depositors in the Quilon Sub Court and that they are exercising general lien on the deposit. In these circumstances the opposite party is duty bound to renew the deposit on each and every stage of its maturity. The Civil Suit was then settled out of court in the month of October, 1999. Even since, the complainant and his wife have been continuously approaching the opposite party for payment of the amount but in vein.
The complainant together with his wife caused to issue a notice to the opposite party through their Advocate on 10/07/06 demanding payment of the amount within 15 days. But even after receiving the said notice the opposite party neither paid back the amount nor sent a reply to the Advocate notice.
The opposite party by their act of gross negligence, and deficiency in service caused heavy mental pain and agony to the complainant and his wife and ultimately the wife of the complainant expired due to heart failure on 04/08/06. In these circumstances complainant filed this complaint for getting relief.
The case of the opposite party is that the said general lien is exercised only to the principal amount of fixed deposit in execution of the pending Civil Suit.
(3)
The opposite party had not curtailed the right of the depositors to collect interest of their deposit. The opposite party had taken all efforts to turn out the details of the said deposit and found that the said amount was kept in the opposite party Bank. The opposite party has no objection to release the fixed deposit whenever they surrender the deposit receipt to the opposite party bank. It is not correct that the opposite party is duty bound to renew the deposit on each and even stage of maturity. The averment in the complaint that he and his wife have been continuously approaching for payment of the amount was not true. The complainant with full knowledge of these facts approached the Forum, with malafide intention. There is no deficiency in service from the part of opposite party the complaint is maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.
From the side of the complainant, he was examined as PW1. Exts.P1 to P12 marked.
From the side of the opposite parties DW1 examined. Ext.D1 marked.
The Forum considered the points:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?
2. Compensation and cost
(4)
After hearing both sides the Forum has passed an order allowing the complaint in part and directing the opposite party to pay the fixed deposit amount to
the complainant with interest applicable to fixed deposits for a period exceeding 5 years from 1978 till October 1999 and there after at the rate applicable to SB a/c. The opposite party was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation and cost.
There after both parties filed appeal before the Hon. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The appellant in Appeal No.115/10 was the complainant and the appellant in Appeal No.389/10 was the opposite party in CC.294/06 in the CDRF, Kollam. The complainant had filed the appeal contenting that the denial of interest applicable to Fixed Deposits up to the period of releasing the amount of fixed deposit and restricting the same up to October 1995 is liable to be set aside.
The opposite party also had filed appeal pointing out that the interest with respect to the fixed deposit was being credited in the SB account of the complainant and the same were being withdrawn by the complainant periodically. The above aspect was omitted to be pointed out before the District Forum. It is also contented that it would not be possible to pay further interest for the same period.
The Hon. Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside the order of the Forum directing with finding that the case of opposite party that interest
(5)
on the Fixed Deposit has been credited in the SB account and the same has been with drawn by the complainant if true, the order of the Forum would require reconsideration. Hence the matter was remitted back to the Forum and also directed that the Forum will permit the parties to adduce further evidence if so they desire.
As directed by the State Commission both sides were allowed to adduce further evidence and all the aspects were reconsidered by the Forum. The complainant had no further evidence. From the side of opposite parties DW1 examined. Ext.D1 marked. The points were reconsidered. We have also considered the point that the deniel of interest applicable to the fixed deposits for the period after settlement of OS 318/1982 is not explained in the previous order of the Forum.
Points
Admittedly the complainant together with his wife made a term deposit of Rs.12,500/- to the opposite party bearing an interest at the rate of 9% for the period of 63 months and the opposite party exercised a general lien on that deposit in the execution of the Civil Suit pending before the Sub Court, Kollam for realization of amount due to the Bank. It is also admitted that while the execution proceedings were pending the Judgment debtors approached and settled the account.
According to the complainant he had made such a deposit with an intention to use the monthly interest for his personal use and for making future investments. The denial of releasing maturity amounts in their request is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party. According to the complainant, interest ought
(6)
have been deposited in the complainant’s account bearing no.2002 every month as it is stated in the FDR itself. Ext.P9 established the fact that no interest was adjusted against the alleged dues alleging payable to the opposite parties in pursuance to the so called lien imposed by the opposite party themselves with the knowledge and control of the complainant. The Bank had refused to pay the FDR sent for collection giving reason that a general lien has been exercised upon the deposit. In such a case the Bank had an obligation to continue, to keep the FDR renewed on the same terms and conditions as stipulated in the original FDR. The Bank has failed to do this and hence the original FDR should be deemed to be a cumulative deposit receipt operating on a re investment plan until the amount of FDR is paid back to the complainant.
The contention of the opposite party is that lien is imposed only on the principal amount and not curtailed the right to collect interest there on. The opposite party is not bound to renew the deposit on each and every stage of maturity. It is the duty of the complainant to make request to the opposite party for renewing the fixed deposit. Even after the settlement of pending money suit, the complainant had not demanded the amount at that time. They have demanded for the money only after 6 years.
Heard both sides.
The Learned Counsel for the complainant would further argue that the opposite party bank has deliberately suppressed production of the statement of account during the couse of proceedings for reasons best known to them. The last
(7)
transaction in the said SB account No.2002 was only prior to 4 years of filing the complaint. Since the FDR is not invalidated the terms and conditions of FDR is continue to be valid. The opposite party is bound to continue to remit 9% interest per annum into the account No.2002 of the complainant. It is the responsibility of the opposite party to intimate the complainant about the lifting of General lien. The opposite party never intimated the matter to the complainant. Since the opposite party has exercised General lien on the fixed deposit, it is the responsibility of the opposite party to treat the FDR should be deemed to have been continued with the terms and conditions of FDR. The opposite party had credited interest in the said SB account only for 5 years and not there after. Hence the complainant is entitled to credit interest in the said SB account for the entire period.
The opposite party further argued that they had paid a sum of Rs.45811 by way of DD.No.276066 dated 22/03/2010 in favour of the complainant as per the order passed by the Forum. But later on perusing the old records it is found that the opposite party had credited the 21 quarterly interest of FD to the complainant’s SB account No.2002. It can be clearly revealed from the Ext.D1, copy of relevant pages of (281.25x21) Hence an amount of Rs.590625 is to be refunded by the complainant to the opposite party.
We have perused Ext.D1 in detail. It is found that the opposite party had credited quarterly interest to the complainant’s SB account. Thus totally an amount of Rs.5906.25 credited to the complainant’s account.
(8)
Another point of argument of the complainant is that denial of interest applicable to the fixed deposits for the period after settlement in OS 318/1982 has not been explained in the order of the Forum. It is an admitted fact that lien was lifted on 1999. But even after lifting the lien the complainant had not taken any steps to withdraw the amount or to renew the FD account. They have demanded the amount only after 6 years of the settlement of pending money suit. The complainant is the only person responsible for the non withdrawal or non renewal of the FD account after the settlement of money suit. The opposite party cannot be blamed for the default from the part of the complainant. Even though the complainant failed to withdraw the amount or to renew FD account, the money was kept in the bank and it holds interest at least at the rate of interest applicable to SB account.
It is further argued by the complainant that he had not released the DD for an amount of Rs.45811/-. No evidence adduced by the opposite parties to substantiate their argument. As the opposite party had not produced any document to prove that DD for an amount of Rs.45811/- was issued by them to the complainant
the opposite party is bound to pay that amount to the complainant. On a detailed verification of the records it is seen that the opposite party had deposited an amount of Rs.45811/- in the Forum by way of DD bearing no.276066 dated 22/03/2010 being the awarded amount in CC.No.294/06 in the file of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam.
(9)
The DD amount Rs.45811/- includes the interest credited to the complainant’s SB account as per Ext.D1. Further payment of interest for the same period cannot be justified. Hence the complainant is liable to return the amount Rs5906.25 to the opposite party.
In these circumstances, the Forum hereby directs that the amount already deposited in the Forum by the opposite parties Rs.45811/- will be released on application of the complainant after depositing Rs.5906/- in favour of the opposite parties.
Dated this the 31st day of July 2012.
G.Vasanthakumari:Sd/-
Adv.Ravi Susha :Sd/-
R.Vijayakumar :Sd/-
(10)
INDEX
List of witness for the complainant
PW1 - F.V.Albin
List of documents for the complainant
P1 - Deposit Receipt
P2 - Intimation
P3 - Advocate notice
P4 - Postal Receipt
P5 - Letter dated :15/04/08
P6 - Notice letter dated :09/06/08
P7 - Letter dated :28/01/08
P8 - Letter dated :23/01/08
P9 - photocopy of passbook
P10 - Letter dated 15/10/07
P11 - Letter dated 05/04/08
P12 - Letter dated ;23/01/08
List of witness for the opposite party
DW1 - Thomas
List of document for the opposite party
D1 - Ledger statement
