O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. Complainants 1 to 8 who are the legal representatives of deceased Byloori Satyanarayana filed this complaint claiming an amount of Rs. 10,06,025/- being the interest under 5 FDRs and also principal amount under one FDR and damages for mental agony and stress and costs of the complaint. The 1st complainant represents the other complainants by virtue of power of attorneys executed by them in his favour.
2 The case of the complainants in brief is that Byloori Satyanarayana who had filed 5 FDRs two SB accounts and a locker with the 1st opposite party died on 14.09.2001 unmarried and intestate leaving behind the complainants herein as legal heirs. The deceased was having TDRs bearing Nos. 1522/1, 1523/1, 1524/1 for principal amount of Rs. 2,01,638/- respectively and TDR receipt No. 1146/3 for principal amount of Rs. 1,27,812/- and TDR receipt No. 1143/2 for principal amount of Rs. 1,00,819/- and two SB Accounts and one locker and the original FDRs were given to the 1st opposite party for their renewal and also locker was also handed over to the 1st opposite party.
3 Basing on the power of attorneys executed by complainants 2 to 8 the 1st complainant approached the 1st opposite party to receive the TDRs and also amounts lying in SB account and also items available in locker. When he approached the 1st opposite party, they requested the complainant to fill the claim forms to settle the amounts belonging to Satyanarayana. According to 1st complainant submitted all the claim forms and later the 1st opposite party also made a paper publication. A 3rd party filed OS 265/2003 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada raising objections pertaining to the contents of the locker. Subsequently the 6th complainant also filed a suit OS 347/03 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. In view of the pendency of these cases it was a stumbling block for realization of amounts due to late Satyanarayana.
4 Subsequently the suit filed by the 3rd party was dismissed. Later the 1st opposite party credited an amount of Rs. 8,67,137/- into the complainant’s SB account A/c. No. 2491 on 04.10.2007 without furnishing the details pertaining to the principal amounts, date of deposits, date of maturity and rate of interest etc. They also addressed three letters to the opposite party for the full particulars but they did not give any reply and it amounts to deficiency of service. According to complainants the amount pertaining to FDR bearing No. 1143/2 principal amount is Rs.1,00,819/-. Though he demanded by way of letters the 1st opposite party did not choose to give any answer. Thus they have shown the amount payable by opposite party to the tune of Rs. 8,96,025/- and also claimed damages for mental agony, in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-. They calculated interest at 13% from 14.09.2001 to 25.03.2010 on 4 FDR amounts and also the interest at the same rate coupled with the principal amount for the first 5th TDR bearing No. 1143/2.
5 The 1st opposite party filed its written version and also additional written version adopted by 2nd opposite party denying the material allegations attributed against them and according to them the deceased was holding only 4 FDRs bearing Nos. 1522/1, 1523/1, 1524/1 and 1146/3 for principal amounts of Rs. 2,00,000/- each for the 3 FDRs and Rs. 1,00,819/- for the 4 FDR and has shown maturity amount of Rs. 2,01,638/- each for the first 3 FDRs and an amount of Rs. 1,41,232/- for the 4th FDR bearing No. 1146/3.
6 It is also their case the 5th FDR mention questioned is not at all in existence and in fact the FDR mention in serial No. 4 was renewed as FDR No. 1146/3. The opposite party admitted about filing of suits but according to them in OS 265/2003 the Commissioner appointed to take inventory and he deposited locker key in the Court. Thus they disputed the claim of complainants that the deceased handed over the locker key to them.
7 It is also their case as original FDRs shown in serial Nos. 1 to 4 were lost the 1st complainant along with brothers and sisters submitted by Notarized Indemnity Bond wherein they mentioned four FDRs only and also the amount lying in his SB account. They also filed notarized no objection certificate and requested them to pay the matured proceeds for the 1st complainant and accordingly they deposited Rs. 8,67,137/- on 04.10.2007 in SB account of the 1st complainant. All the details are clearly mentioned the SB account passbook of the 1st complainant. Thus the version of complainant they made several representations with regard to dates of deposits, particulars is not correct. According to them the deceased died on 14.09.2001. The deposits 1 to 3 were matured on 22.09.2001and 4th one on 23.10.2001. The contract is only for 46 days until a request is received for renewal from the deceased. They disputed handing over of original FDRs to them.
8 It is also their case they paid due amount for each deposit with separate entry and the overdue interest was also paid for each deposit account and all the entries are appearing in the passbook presented by the 1st complainant, which were also explained to him and they have also shown in the written version the maturity amount, over due interest paid by him and the rate of interest and number of days. Thus according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part.
9 It is also their version for the over due deposits they need not to pay any interest unless renewed and in this case the depositor died before the due date of deposit and there is no mandate for renewal of deposit from the depositor. Thus disputing very version of the complainants they sought dismissal of the complaint.
10 Now the points for determination are:
- Whether the claim is within time?
- If so, whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the amounts as sought by them?
- To what relief?
11 Point No.1: The opposite party resisted the claim of the complainants on the ground it is barred by limitation as they credited the amount due to the complainants on 04.10.2007. According to the opposite parties within 2 years from date of deposit the complaint should have been filed but as it is filed on 26.03.2010 it is barred by limitation in view of Sec. 24[A] of C.P. Act.
12 On the other hand it is the version of the complainants that though they were demanding the bank through letters they failed to furnish the particulars of the amounts and as such it is only from the date of refusal by the opposite party the limitation point starts. In this regard the learned counsel for complainant relied on a decision on reported in “The Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. through its Branch Manager [Appellant] Vs. Mrs. Shabnam [Respondent ]” 2000 [2] CPR 407. This is a decision rendered by State Consumer Forum Chandighar. In the case plea of limitation raised by opposite party. The complainant was contacting the opposite party bank from time to time through letters and still he was client of opposite party bank. The complainant was filed in the year 1995 though the complainant deposited Rs. 3,000/- with her banker on 13.09.1998. in those circumstances it was held that the complaint was within time. Learned counsel also relied on another decision rendered by West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in “Searock Commerce Ltd. [Appellant] Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Respondent] ii [1997] CPJ 300” In that case loss occurred in the year 1998 and the complainant was filed in the year 1993. As the opposite party neither settled nor repudiated the claim of the complainant it was held the cause was still subsisting and the claim was not barred by limitation. In this case on hand also if we peruse the allegations in the complaint for the third letter addressed on 21.08.2009 admittedly no reply to given. The limitation counts from the date of last letter which is 21.08.2009 and the complainant is to be treated well within time. Thus it clear the complainant is not barred by limitation. Hence this point is answered in favour of the complainant.
13 Point No.2: As seen from the contentions of the both parties what is manifest is though the complainants sought amounts under 5 FDRs the opposite party disputed the 5th TDR bearing No. 1143/2 and according to them it was renewed and assigned fresh No. 1143 and paid these amounts to the 1st complainant and deposited the said amounts in his SB account. The deposit of amount of Rs.8,67,137/- in the SB account No. 2941 of the 1st complainant is not disputed by the complainants. They calculated interest at the rate of 13% on all FDRs from 14.09.2001 to 25.03.2010 and sought an amount Rs. 8,87,475/- and also the interest to be paid in SB account for an amount of Rs.20,117/- on Rs. 8,550/- totaling to Rs.8,96,025/-.
14 In this regard the 1st complainant furnished his chief affidavit and additional chief affidavit and exhibited Ex.A1 the power of attorney executed in his favour by other complainants, Ex.A2 copy of three letters addressed by him to the opposite party with 2 postal acknowledgments, Ex.A3 copy of death certificate of deceased, Ex.A4 the statement of accounts, Ex.A5 the instructions circulars dated. 13.10.2000, Ex.A6 statement of accounts, Ex.A7 copy of letters addressed to the 1st opposite party and Ex.A8 power of attorneys executed by complainants 2 to 8 in favour of 1st complainant.
15 As against this evidence the 1st opposite party furnished affidavit of one Nannam Ranganayakulu, Branch Manager as RW1 and also that of Ellapu Durga Prasad, Branch Manager as RW2, and exhibited Ex.B1 to Ex.B12. Ex. B1 is the copy of Indemnity Bond executed by opposite party, Ex.B2 is no objection affidavit on their behalf, Exs. B3 and B4 are existing and revised guide lines, Ex.B5 is renewal FDR bearing No. 1146/2, Ex.B6 is the voucher sowing the amounts credited to FDR 1146/3 after renewal of FDR 1146/2, Ex.B7 is the FDR bearing No. 1146/3 standing in the name of deceased which was paid and as such the same was closed, Ex.B8 is the voucher showing the amount credited to the complainants accounts for the amount due under FDR 1146/3, Ex.B9 is the statement of account, Ex.B10 is the credit voucher standing in the name of one I. Tammayya, Ex.B11 is the statement of accounts standing in the name of 1st complainant and Ex.B12 is FDR bearing No. 1143 standing in the name of one I. Tammayya.
16 As seen from the documents and also the proof affidavits what is clear is FDR 1143/2 is renewed as 1143/3 and the amount was also credit to the SB Account of the 1st complainant. In fact FDR No. 1143 stands in the name of one I. Tammayya as evidenced under Ex.B11. The renewal of 1146/2 as FDR 1146/3 is evidenced under Ex.B6 whereas Ex.B5 would indicate 1146/2 is renewed and renewal FDR 1146/3 is Ex.B7 which was also closed as the amount was paid as evidenced under Ex.B8. Thus the very claim of complainants for the amounts due under 1146/2 is unsustainable.
17 Here it is also not out of place to mention that under Ex.A2 no objection affidavit the complainants have quoted only 4 FDRs which are 1522/1, 1523/1, 1524/1 and 1546/3. They have not shown the 5th FDR bearing No. 1146/2 which they claimed in the complaint. Even according to no objection affidavit furnished by the complainants the deceased handed over only 4 FDRs and thus their claim for 1146/2 is holly unsustainable.
18 The grievance of the complainants that inspite of their letters and requests the 1st opposite party did not furnish the details of FDRs is also challenged by the opposite party on the ground they furnished information in the passbook of 1st complainant. Though in this regard the learned counsel for complainants urged that the party in possession of best evidenced should produced the same into court, admittedly the complainants have not challenged the statement of the 1st opposite party that they provided the required information in the passbook of the complainant. In fact the 1st complainant also failed to produce the passbook to counter the allegation of 1st opposite party. Thus in these circumstances the grievance of the complainants that the bank has not furnished the required information pertaining to FDRs is unsustainable.
19 Thus in view of the above discussion what is clear is the opposite party in fact paid the amounts due to the deceased into SB account of 1st complainant and they have not done any act which attracts the deficiency of service on their part. Thus this point is answered against the complainants.
20 Point No.3: In view of the finding rendered under point No.2 the complainants are not entitled for any amount. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
21. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 06th day of April, 2015.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXXXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainants:
PW1: Sri Byloori Balakrishna [1st complainant]
For opposite parties:
RW1: Sri Nannam Ranganayakulu
RW2: Sri Ellapu Durga Prasad
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainants:-
Ex.A1 Power of attorney executed in his favour by other complainants
Ex.A2 Copy of three letters addressed by him to the opposite party with 2 postal acknowledgments
Ex.A3 Copy of death certificate of deceased
Ex.A4 Statement of accounts
Ex.A5 Instructions circulars
Ex.A6 Statement of accounts
Ex.A7 Copy of letters addressed to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A8 Power of attorneys executed by complainants 2 to 8 in favour of 1st complainant.
For opposite parties:-
Ex. B1 Copy of Indemnity Bond executed by opposite party
Ex.B2 No objection affidavit on their behalf
Ex. B3 Existing and revised guide lines
Ex. B4 Existing and revised guide lines
Ex.B5 Renewal FDR bearing No. 1146/2
Ex.B6 Voucher sowing the amounts credited to FDR 1146/3 after renewal of FDR 1146/2
Ex.B7 FDR bearing No. 1146/3 standing in the name of deceased which was paid and as such the same was closed
Ex.B8 Voucher showing the amount credited to the complainants accounts for the amount due under FDR 1146/3
Ex.B9 Statement of account
Ex.B10 Credit voucher standing in the name of one I. Tammayya
Ex.B11 Statement of accounts standing in the name of 1st complainant
Ex.B12 FDR bearing No. 1143 standing in the name of one I. Tammayya.
Sd/-XXX Sd/-XXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
