Orissa

Jajapur

CC/100/2015

Sitanath Jena - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager Punjab National Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Srikanta Mohapatra,Seetikantha Das

16 Jul 2018

ORDER

                IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Biraja Prasad Kar, President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                          

                                                   Dated the 16th day of July,2018.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 100 of 2015

Kanakalata jena   W/O Late Sitanath Jena  

Vill . Nisimala  , P.O. Sunguda ,

P.S. Badachana , Dist.Jajpur.                                                               …………….    .Complainant .                                                                       

                          (Versus)

1.Branch Manager, Punjab National  Bank,

At/ P.O. Darpana , Via. Chandikhole ,Dist.Jajpur.

2.District Manager-cum-C.S.O,O.S.C.S.C,Ltd,

At/P.O/PS/Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                         …………………..Opp.Party.                                                                                                                                                     .                                                            

For the Complainant:                                     Sri Srikant Mohapatra, Sri S.K.Das, Advocates.

For the Opp.Party   : No.1                              Sri Chandrakanta Pradhan , Advocate.          

For the Opp.Party : No.2                               Self.                                                                              

                                                                                                      Date of order:  16. 07. 2018.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, MEMBER  .

   The petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

The facts  relevant  as per complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner’s  husband happened to be the President of Lok Vikash  and he was appointed by O.P.no.2 as storage agent for Badachana  Block and for the same,  the O.P.no.2 had taken pledge  of fixed  amount of Rs 75,000/- which has been issued by  O.P.no.1 with a rate of interest 12% per annum a term of one year on dt.1.12.1995.  After completion of term of fixed deposit the husband of the complainant had informed the O.P.no.1 and 2 for renewal of the fixed deposit with accrued interest .Subsequently  after completion of storage agent period  of the husband of the petitioner , got clearance certificate and thereafter demanded the pledge  fixed deposit  amount certificate  from  O.P.no.2   but the O.P.no. 2 did not  found  it   and asked the O.P.no.1 for issuance of duplicate certificate  on the  pretest of loss in  super cyclone .Thereafter  getting duplicate certificate  the husband of the petitioner approached the O.P.no.1 to release   the matured amount of the fixed deposit   and O.P.no.1  pleased  to give the amount of Rs. 91,028/- after completion of 20 years and cutting the miserable growth of the  fixed deposit amount . The husband of the petitioner raised objection before  the O.P.no.1 with  all deliberation and discussion the O.P.no.1 has been pleased  to release  the additional interest  amount to the  tune of Rs 74,000/- .That the husband of the petitioner has made fixed deposit amount of Rs. 75,000/-  on dt.01.12.1995  and the O.p.no.1  released  only  the amount with accrued interest ie. Rs.91, 028/- plus 74,000/-    which is illegal,  arbitrary and whimsical  one only to make a   wrongful loss  to the husband of the petitioner .

            The O.P.no.1 and 2 have never  given any intimation to the husband of the petitioner              about the maturity of the fixed deposit and they have also deliberately avoided to the request of the  petitioner’s  husband  for renewal of the fixed deposit and due to negligence,  the ops are jointly liable to indemnify the loss of the petitioner.  The cause of action arose on 01.07.15 when the O.P.no.1 has issued the certificate  of Rs. 91,028/ and on 07.07.15 the petitioner husband raised objection there to and then 04.08.15 when the O.P.no.1 gave a reply to the RTI application on dt.31.07.15 . Hence the O.Ps  have  caused financial loss and harassed  the petitioner  husband  who is substituted by his widow wife. Accordingly the petitioner  has filed the present dispute with the prayer to direct the o.ps  to calculate the fixed deposit  interest declared by the Govt. from 1995 to 2015  on the fixed deposit amount of Rs 75,000/- along with pay compensation of Rs. One lakh  for  mental and financial  harassment of the  petitioner .

            After notice the O.p.no.1 appeared through their learned advocate and filed their written version taking the following stands  :

That the present case is barred by limitation ..

That the present complainant not being a consumer as defined U/S 2(d)  of C.P. Act.

That the complainant  being the president of Lok Vikash had  made a fixed deposit of Rs. 75,000/- on 01.12.1996 for one year  with maturity value Rs.84,413.00 and the said fixed deposit was pledged with O.p.no.2 by the complainant.  The depositor  did not  come to the bank for renewal of the fixed deposit on due date . On expiry of agency period it was  found that the o.p2 has lost the F.D and considering the application of the petitioner , the bank issued  duplicate F.D.R    for renewal of the F.D for the retrospective  period from 02.12.1996  So that it will matured on 01.07.2016  as per  guide line of  the bank regarding payment of interest on renewal of over due Term Deposit .

1. Over due Term deposit are to be renewed on the date of presentation and not to be renewed  from  retrospective date .
2. The appropriate prevailing rate of interest shall be applicable from the date of renewal of F.D.R .
3. Interest for the over due period is to be paid at savings Bank rate of interest as applicable from time to time. Rate of interest on savings account is 3.5% up to 02.05.2011 and 4% from 03.05.2011.

          It is also submitted  that at the time of renewal system credited  additional interest Rs. 6615.00  but after manual calculation over due interest comes to rs.79,779/-  as such the system calculation rectified and the balance overdue interest Rs.73,164.00 has already been paid to the complainant .hence the case is liable to be dismissed .

                          The O.P.no.2 himself appeared   and  filed their written version  taking the following  stand :

That Sri Sitanath Jena , the president  Lok vikash,Chandikhole  was appointed as a storage agent of Badachana Block for the year 1995-96  and continued till 1996-97.  He had entered into agreement with Dist . Manager, Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, jajpur for extension  period .  As per requirement  of agreement he had deposited the security deposit of rs.75,000/- in shape of bank draft  bearing No.407139 dt. 17.01.1996  in favour of Managing Director ,Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation ltd, Bhubaneswar  and security in shape of fixed deposit of Rs.75,000/- from Punjab National Bank. Darpan bearing No.190437 dt. 01.12.1996 . The security deposit had been pledged in favour of Managing Director Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation ltd, Bhuabneswar . The O.p.no.2 is the district administrative authority  who acts according to the order of the Managing Director. O.P.no.2 is in no way concerned  with releasing security of the storage agent . He has carried out the order as directed by Corporation Head office .  It is mentioned here that the then storage Agent, President  Lok Vikash  have submitted no claim certificate on 28.01.15 with the Dist. Manager , Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, jajpur for refund of security deposit for the year in question . After settlement  of his account with the corporation he has submitted the No claim certificate as per clause -2-vi-e of agreement  to the managing Director Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Bhubaneswar for necessary approval and order  .

            That complain made by the complainant  does not  relate to O.p.no.2 as per agreement clause-4 (d) which declares that :

“ The Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation  shall not be responsible for any dues including statutory dues of the employees of Storage Agent from any source either Govt or Non-Govt. it will be sole responsibility of the Storage Agent .

It is the sole responsibility of the Storage Agent to claim before the concerned bank .

The contents of agreement clause -9   corporation  is not  be liable towards  3^rd party clause -9  agreement says that  “ The corporation is not liable  for any  omission and commission by the agent towards their 3^rd party   within the period of this agreement.  Clause -2 vi-e  says that   the aforesaid security deposits shall not be refunded to the storage agent immediately after the termination of this agreement but shall be held up until accounts are finally settled and accepted by the corporation for this  purpose the storage agent shall have to furnish “ No claim certificate “ in form prescribed by the corporation .  

            From above clause it is cleared  that the  O.P.no.2 has no alternative to change of his securities in original fixed deposit unless until the storage agent has  submitted no  claim certificate to the Dist.Manager odisha State Civil supplies Corporation jajpur on 28.01.15 . In response to this the department auditor issued “Audit clearance ceritifcate on 28.02.15 . The Distrtict Manager Odisha state Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Jajpur has already forwarded the “Audit clearance certificate along with no claim certificate to the managing director Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd, Bhubaneswar   vide letter no.3022 dt.22,07.15 .The District Manager odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd ,Jajpur has carried out the order no.19223 dt.02.11.15 . So the O.P.no.2 have not committed any mistake in refunding the security as per clauses of agreement and in the eye of law . Hence  placing on the above narrated  facts , the dispute  may be dismissed against O.P.no.2.

On the date of hearing the matter was posted  for hearing as last chance. The advocate for the complainant was absent. O.P.no.1 is absent. O.p.no.2 filed hazira . Argument heard from the side of O.p.no.2 .

(1)After perusal of the record and documents in details we observed that it is undisputed fact that the husband of the petitioner was a storage agent under the O.P.no.2 for the year 01.12.1995. It is also undisputed fact  for the above purpose the husband of the petitioner pledged fixed deposit of Rs.75,000/- for a period of one year which was done by O.p.no.1 before O.p.no.2 . It is alleged by the petitioner that after completion of term of fixed deposit  the petioner informed the O.p.no.1 and 2 for renewal of the fixed deposit.  It is also alleged by the petitioner that  the O.Ps  never gave  any intimation   about the maturity of the fixed deposit amount  and they have also deliberately avoided to  the request of the petitioner for renewal of the fixed  deposit. On the  other hand it is our  considered view that  we have not come across a single scrape of paper / congent  evidence which established  that the husband of the petitioner approached the O.Ps   for renewal of the alleged fixed deposit.

(2)It is also submitted by O.P.no.1 that as per guide line  Term deposit are to be renewed on the date of presentation and not to be renewed retrospectively  date  and  the Interest for the over due period is to be paid at savings Bank rate of interest as applicable from time to time. The O.P.no no.1  also submitted the balance  overdue interest Rs.73,164.00 has already been paid to the petitioner  . Accordingly  it is our considered view that the petitioner fails to establish  his case by producing cogent evidence .

Hence this Order

                                   The dispute is dismissed without any cost.

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 16th day of July,2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.