Date of filing:9.7.2014.
Date of disposal:12.1.2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM - II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., PRESIDENT (FAC)
SRI S.SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015.
C.C.No.151 of 2014
Between:
Sri A.V.V.Narayana Rao, S/o Surya Prakasa Rao, Hindu, 41 years, R/o D.No.30-5-22, Koka Chalapathirao Street, Durga Agraharam, Vijayawada.
.… Complainant.
AND
Bank of Maharashtra, Rep., by its Branch Manager, D.No.11-25-18, KT Road, Vijayawada – 1.
.… Opposite Party.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 5.1.2015, in the presence of Sri S.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for complainant and Sri V.V.S.Sai Babu, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble President (FAC) Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- with the opposite party on 21.11.2005 bearing TDR No.0067238. Subsequently the complainant obtained 80% loan on the deposit. The complainant requested the opposite party several times to cancel the said FDR and settle his account. The Manager of the opposite party issued a letter on 8.7.2011 to the complainant stating that the system of the bank is migrated to CBS online since 17.9.2007 at their branch and due to technical problems they are unable to provide account statement. Later also the complainant requested the opposite party several times to settle his account but the opposite party did not consider his request inspite of issue of legal notice. Thus the opposite party committed deficiency in service in not settling the account of the complainant. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite party praying the Forum to direct the opposite party to render statement of account pertaining to account No.CC.258 TDR No.0067238 dated 21.11.2005 for Rs.15,00,000/- and also initiated necessary proceedings to settle the said account after adjusting the loan amount and to pay the remaining balance amount with interest to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and also costs.
2. The version of the opposite party is in brief:
The opposite party denied all the allegations of the complainant and submitted that at the request of the complainant the opposite party has closed the said TDR on 12.5.2006 and proceeds of TDR of Rs.15,33,742/- along with interest was credited to CC.No.258. The balance in CC.No.258 before the deposit of the proceeds was Rs.13,91,868/- debit and after deposit of proceeds the balance in CC. account No.258 had come down to Rs.1,41,874/-. As on date no amount is due to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant had approached the opposite party and requested the bank authorities to provide a copy of statement of account No.258 and TDR dated 21.11.2005 for Rs.15,00,000/-. All the accounts of bank are computerized and are maintaining under bankers books of Evidence Act. The complainant’s transaction/ accounts are prior to 17.9.2007. While the system is migrated to CBS online the said accounts statement belongs to the period before CBS system and the previous system is out of order due to some technical problem and as such then the Branch Manager was unable to issue the statement on the particular date and expressed the same in writing to the complainant on 8.7.2011. Subsequently the complainant received the copy of statement of accounts from the opposite party. The complainant closed the above said TDR and his CC accounts and as such no amount is due to the complainant by the opposite party. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. On behalf of the complainant he gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5. On behalf of the opposite party Sri Y.Srinivas, Branch Manager gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not settling the account of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as cumulative deposit with the opposite party on 21.11.2005 and the maturity date is 21.11.2007 under CDR No.3659 account No.AF/2004 under Ex.A.2. Subsequently the complainant obtained 80% loan on the said deposit and requested the opposite party several times to cancel the said FDR and settle the claim. The Manager of the opposite party issued a letter Ex.A.3 dated 8.7.2011 stating that to provide a copy of the statement of account relating to the CC.258 and TDR No.0067238 dated 21.11.2005 for Rs.15,00,000/-, held with their branch for the period of 21.11.2005 to till date, is not possible as the system is migrated to CBS online since 17.9.2007 at their branch the said accounts statement belongs to the period before CBS system and the previous system is out of order due to some technical problem and they were not in a position to issue the statement of account. On several requests of the complainant the opposite party did not settle his account. Therefore the complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.A.1 dated 22.4.2013 demanding the opposite party to render statement of account pertaining to the account No.CC./258 TDRNo.0067238 dated 21.11.2005 for Rs.15,00,000/-= and also to issue a necessary proceedings to settle the said account after adjusting the loan amount. If the opposite party fails to comply with the demand of the complainant he has to proceed to the court of law. The opposite party received the said notice under Ex.A.5. Ex.B.1 is statement of account issued by the opposite party for the period from 21.11.2005 to 17.9.2007. the account copy shows that the balance in the account of the complainant as on 31.5.2007 shows Rs.1,177/- at the request of the complainant the opposite party had closed the said TDR on 12.5.2006 and the proceeds of TDR of Rs.15,33,742/- along with interest was credited to the Account No.258. The balance in CC.258 before the deposit of proceeds was Rs.13,91,868/- and it has come down to Rs.1,41,874/- and it was adjusted to loan accounts of the complainant. Ex.B.1 shows the same. As on date no amount is due to the complainant by the opposite party. Subsequently the complainant received the copy of statement of account from the opposite party. The above said TDR and CC account of the complainant were closed and no amount is due to the complainant by the opposite party.
8. As per Ex.B.1 the account of the complainant was closed on 13.9.2007 and there is no balance in his account. The account of the complainant was closed in the year 2007 and now he approached the Forum after lapse of seven years. Therefore the complaint is barred by limitation. Mere issuance of legal notice cannot create limitation. Limitation in filing of complaint in the Consumer Forum is two years from the date of cause of action.
As per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 24 A Limitation period. - (l) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (l), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period:
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
Therefore the complaint is not entertained before this Forum in view of the limitation point. The complaint has to decide on elaborate evidence. Hence the complainant is directed to approach proper court for relief.
POINT No.3:-
9. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 12th day of January, 2015.
PRESIDENT(FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: For the opposite party:
P.W.1 A.V.V.Narayana Rao D.W.1 Y.Srinivas,
Complainant, Branch Manager
(by affidavit) of the opposite party
(by affidavit)
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A.1 17.09.2007 Copy of Statement of account.
Ex.A.2 21.11.2005 Photocopy of deposit receipt for Rs.15,00,000/-.
Ex.A.3 08.07.2011 Certificate issued by the opposite party.
Ex.A.4 22.04.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.5 . . Postal acknowledgement.
On behalf of the opposite party:
Ex.B.1 . . certified copy of statement of account.
PRESIDENT(FAC)
