DOF.22.4.2004

DOO.5.10.2010

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR

Present: Sri.K.Gopalan:  President

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari:  Member

Smt.M.D.Jessy:               Member

                                      Dated this, the 5^th  day of  October  2010

C.C.No.100/2004

1. M.R.G.Nambiar,

  Madappurakkal House,

  P.O.Attadappa.                                                                   Complainants

2. V.V.Kamala, W/o.M.R.G.Nambiar

3. V.V.Malathi, D/o. M.R.G.Nambiar

4. V.V.Ambika, D/o. M.R.G.Nambiar

5. V.V.Thankamani, D/o. M.R.G.Nambiar

6. V.V.Chandrasekharan, S/o. M.R.G.Nambiar

   Madappurakkal House,

   P.O.Attadappa.

  (Rep. by Adv.Haridas Thaikkandy)

1. The Branch Manger,

    Central Bank of India,

    Kannur Branch, Kannur.

    (Rep. by Adv.T.Ramakrishnan)

2. The customer Service Cell,

    Central Bank of India,

    Central Officer, Chander Mughi,

    Nariman Point,

    Mumbai 21.                                                                         Opposite parties

O R D E R

Smt.K.P.Preethakumari

          This is a complaint field under section12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.3.00,000/- as maturity value of deposit certificate with interest and compensation.

The case of the complainant is that he had opened an S.B account having No.10756 at the central bank of India, Chemboor branch. After his retirement during 1999 he had settled at Kannur and there after opened an S.B account bearing No.7277 with the 1^st opposite party and had deposited Rs.74,600/-/- which is the pensionary benefit like gratuity and provident fund on 6.12.1993 as QIDR.No.49/28. More over since 1993 the complainant has been depositing different amount on different occasions with opposite party, as term deposit of MMDL or any other deposit for which the following certificates namely QIDR dt.6.12.93 for an amount of Rs.74,600/- and four MMDC dt. 16.3.98 for Rs.8000/-, 16.12.00 for Rs.8000/-, 18.12.01 for Rs.8000/-, 27.12.02 for Rs.8, 659/-, QIDR for Rs.74, 600/- and seven FDRS dt. 15.5.95 having No.877768, FDR No.877834, dt.18.8.95, FDR.No.846239 dt.18.11.94, FDR.No.877838 dt.23.8.95 FDR.No.877785 dt.23.11.95, FDR.No.877785 dt.12.6.95, FDR.No.87785 dt.21.9.95 were issued and all were already matured, but the maturity amount was not been paid to the complainant by the opposite party despite his demand and earnest request.  The officer under 1^st opposite party asked the complainant to sign in 4 papers when he visited 1st opposite party’s branch by making him to believe that the original certificates were missed and the signature is only for converting the old certificate into new certificate and the said officer was subsequently transferred. The complainant was dragged on several occasion by the opposite party for getting the maturity value of the deposit certificate but the opposite party represented that on maturity of the deposit certificate No.877834 vide account No.51/101, dt.18.8.95 an amount of Rs.7158/- being the maturity  value of the said certificate was transferred to S.B account No.7277 and that on maturity of certificate No.877838, vide account No.51/05 dt.23.8.95, an amount of Rs.8,278/- being the maturity value of the said certificate was also transferred to S.B Account No.7277 of the complainant. Meanwhile the complainant was served with an unauthenticated extract of the entries in his S.B account No.7277 in the ledger maintained by 1^st opposite party for the period from 1.1.93 to 20.7.03. On perusal of the extract supplied by 1^st opposite party, it was seen that the maturity value of account NO.51/101 and account No.51/105(rs.7158/- and Rs.8278/-) were not accounted in the S.B account No.7277 either on the date of maturity or any other dates by the opposite party. The opposite parties shows gross negligence in dealing with the deposit of the complainant as the said amount of Rs.7158/- and Rs.8278/- were not entered in his S.B account till date. The complainant suspected and apprehend that all the deposit made by him with the  opposite party might have been misappropriated by the  staffs under  the opposite party and that they  might have converted the signed 4 papers obtained from complainant  in earlier occasion into any document to protect the  then officer under the 1^st opposite party. So the complainant issued a registered lawyer notice to opposite parties on 23.2.04. The 1^st opposite party issued a reply stating untenable contentions and 2^nd opposite party kept mum. According to the complainant all miserable are happened due to the deficiency of service of opposite party which caused mental agony, financial loss and damages to his social status. The complainant is entitled to get the maturity proceeds of all the above noted deposit certificates with 18% interest from maturity till the date of payment and also for compensation. The complainant estimates Rs.3, 00,000/- towards the maturity value of all certificates and compensation from the opposite parties. Hence this compliant.

          Upon receiving the notices from the Forum both opposite parties appeared and filed their version. The opposite parties admits that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.74, 600/- as per the deposit certificates as shown below as

(a)    Sl.No.1.Account NO.49/28 dt.6.12.93 QIDR for Rs.74600/- renewed on 6.12.94 as account NO.UIDR 50/55 and this QIDR 50/55 further renewed  on 7.12.95 as account NO.QIDR 51/61 as serial No.6. This QIDR 51/61 for Rs.74, 600/- renewed on 9.12.96 as account NO.MMDC 52/90 for Rs.78,000/-.MMDC 52/290 Rs.80, 000/- renewed on 7.3.98 and the balance amount of matured value is credited to his S.B accountNo.7277 on 7.3.98. This 80,000/- again renewed on 21.6.99 as account NO.MMDC.55/97 for Rs.84, 867/- and this MMDC 55/97 for Rs.84867/- renewed on 7.9.00 as account NO.MMDC 56/302 for Rs.95000/-. Account NO.MMDC 56/302 for Rs.95, 000/- renewed on 7.12.01 as account No. MMDC 57/472 for Rs.1, 05,532/- and it matured on 7.12.02. This account NO.57/472 for Rs.1, 05,532/- renewed on 27.12.02 as account No. MMDC 58/508 for Rs.107334/- and it was matured on 8.12.03. Account NO.MMDC 58/508 for Rs.107,334/- renewed on 8.12.03 as account NO.MMDC 59/386 for Rs.1,04,483/- and it matured on7.12.04. The balance Rs.10, 000/- credited to his S.B accounts NO.7277 on 8.12.03.

(b)    Sl.No.2. Account NO.53/374 dated 16.3.98 MMDC for Rs.8000/- renewed on 16.9.99 vide MMDC account No.55/213 and this MMDC account NO.55/213 renewed on 16.12.00 vide MMDC account No.56/472 and this (sl.No3) account No.56/472 dated 16.12.00 MMDC for Rs.8000/- renewed on 18.12.01. Vide account NO.57/473 and this (sl.No.4) MMDC No.57/473 for Rs.8000/- dated 18.12.01 renewed on 27.12.02 vide account No.58/509 for Rs.8, 659/- and this serialNo.5 MMDC No.58/509 for Rs.8, 659/- dt. 27.12.02 further renewed on 18.12.03 vide account o.59/394 for Rs.9236/- and it will be matured on 16.12.04(matured value Rs.9779/).

(c)     Sl.No.7 Account No.51/35dt.15.5.95 FDR No: 877768 received on 18.08.1995 vide account No.51/101.  This account No.51/101-FOR No.877834 dated 18.08.1995 matured value of Rs.7319/- was transferred to SB account No.7277 of the complainant on 21.11.1995.

(d)    (Sl.No.9)  There is no such account vide account No.50/160 dated 18.11.1995 FDR No.846239 in the name of the complainant.

(e)    (Sl. No.10)  Account No.51/05 dated 23.08.1995 FDR No.877838 matured value Rs.8464/- was transferred to SB account No.7277 of the complainant on 23.11.1995.

(f)      (Sl. No.11)  There was no such issue as 23.11.1995.  Account No.51/52 (Sl.No.12) dated 12.06.1995 (FDR No.877785) renewed as 21.09.1995 vide account No.51/119 and the (Sl.No.13) account No.51/119 dated 21.09.1995 (FDR No.877852) was closed as 12.12.1995 and paid to the complainant.

The complainant failed to provide correct details.  The original deposit was renewed from time to time and he alleges that he did not get amount on account of earlier deposits.  Such claims are made just to misguide the Forum and it is extremely difficult to trace out details of deposits which are redeposited or matured.  As per the above details it can be seen that he is claiming deposit which he already redeposited.

     The allegations that then Manager of the Bank had obtains the signature of the complainant in 4 papers is also not correct. There was no such incident and hence it is only a concocted story.  The maturity value of receipt No.877834 and 877838 were transferred to SB account of the complainant on due date i.e., on 21.11.1995 and 23.11.1995 respectively.  The opposite party is not in the habit of issuing unauthenticated extract of account.  The opposite party denied the contention that the bank might have converted the signed 4 papers obtained from the complainant into any document to protect the then officer.  The value of account No.51/101 and account No.51/105 (Rs.7158/- and Rs.8278/-) were credited to his SB account No.7277 on 21.11.1995 and 23.11.1995.  The details of deposit - withdrawal with the 1^st opposite party are furnished in the statement.  Moreover if the complainant has any doubt he should have produced the records with him about the deposits with which the opposite party could have verified the records.  So from the above details it is very clear that there is no omission or irregularity from the side of the opposite party.  Many of claims of the complainant are very old and time barred.  Moreover the complainant is not consumer since he did not pay anything to the opposite party.  The complainant is not sure about the details of his claim.  These things require study of complainant’s accounts in detail and detailed evidence.  Since summary proceedings are envisaged before the Forum the matter require proper conduct of the case before competent Civil Court and hence it is necessary to issue direction to the complainant to withdraw the complaint for filing before a competent Civil Court.  Since the transactions are very old during 1995 the claim of the complainant is time barred and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite      

    Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence in this case consists of Exts.A1 to A5, C1 and Exts. B1 to B5.

Issue Nos.1 to 3

          The case of the complainant is that the opposite party was not been paid to the complainant the  maturity amount of his 13 deposits including 2 QID, 4 MMDC and 7 FDR after its maturity even after repeated requests made by him. To prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced Ext.A1 to A5, such as copy of lawyer notice, two pass books, extracts of Accounts during  1992,1996 and 1998, acknowledgement, reply notice and commission report. Even though the opposite party has produced and marked with objection Exts.B1 to B5, the opposite party has not proved these documents.

          The opposite parties contended that all the original deposit was renewed from time to time and the interest amount and the remaining amount after renewing the deposit was credited to his S.B account. The complainant has produced Ext.C1 which was the report of the expert com missioner. As per this report it is seen that all matured deposits were either renewed or accounted to the complainant’s account as stated below.

          So from the commission report it is clear that the complainant had made only two original deposit i.e. item number one, 49/28 for Rs.74600/- and item number two,  53/374 for an  amount of Rs.8000/- and all other deposits mentioned in the complaint is its renewals. Moreover as per commission report it is revealed that all the deposits except item No.9 were paid to the complainant. The item No.9 was in the name of one E.G.Padmini and not in the name of the complainant. So it is clear that all items mentioned in the complaint are paid to the complainant within time. The complainant has not filed any objection to the commission report. More over the complainant had stated in the complaint itself that he was not in the habit of keeping the copy of the deposit certificates and has not produced any other documents or deposits other than that mentioned in the compliant. Above all even though he complainant stated that the then  manager of the bank asked the complaint to sign in 4 papers by making to believe that the original certificates were missed and that the signature  is only for converting the old certificate into new certificate. But he has not produced any documents or evidence to prove this contention. So from the available evidence on record we are of the view that the maturity amount of the entire deposits made by the complainant had paid by opposite party within time and hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.

                             Sd/-                      Sd/-                     Sd/-

President              Member                Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP

A2.Savings Account pass book of complainant

A3.Copy of the unauthenticated extract of passbook issued by OP

A4.Postal AD

A5.Reply notice

Exhibits for the opposite parties:

B1.Copy of the FD receipt No.51/101

B2.Copy of the credit slip dt.21.11.95

B3. Copy of the FD receipt No.51/105

B4.Copy of the credit slip dt.23.11.95

B5.Copy of extract of SB account No.7277 of the complainant with 1^st OP

Exhibits for the court

C1.Commission report  

Witness examined for either side: Nil

/forwarded by order/

Senior Superintendent

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.