SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite party for getting an order directing opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,21,049/-, the balance RD amount with Rs.1 lakh as compensation and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant is an SB account holder in Kannur District Co-operative bank -Thalassery main branch as per account No.1002005006760, he has started a Recurring Deposit by account No.1002157201218 in the bank on 20/06/2013 for Rs.1,700/- per month for a period of 60 months and matured amount promised and noted in the RD pass book was Rs.1,33,340/-. He has given a standing instruction for monthly payment of Rs.1,700/- from his above SB account which is maintained by him in the bank in his name and he was keeping the monthly payment balance of Rs.1,700/- in the above SB account without any default. As per the above RD after 60 months it is matured on 20/06/2018. But after maturing the above RD, he has gone to the bank and asked for closing the above RD and to pay Rs.1,33,340/-. But at that time, the OP said that they had taken the monthly payment of Rs.1,700/- per month from his account only 7 times and hence the OP has not given his RD matured amount of Rs.1,33,340/- and instead he has given him only Rs.12,291/- and closed the RD. The OP said to him that it is a mistake on the part of the bank by taking the monthly amount of Rs.1,700/- from his account. Hence he has a loss of Rs.1,21,049/-. The action of the OP is illegal, unjust and unlawful and the same is sheer negligence on the part of OP to an account holder of RD is concerned. The action of the OP is cheating the RD account holder and deficiency of service on the part of OP. As an RD account holder, he is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.1,33,340/- as agreed and written in the RD pass book given to him on the date of commencement on 20/06/2013 by the OP. The OP has closed the RD by paying only 12,291/- to him on 05/09/2018. Thereafter on 11/09/2018 he has given a notice to the OP for payment of the full amount within 3 days and the OP has accepted the notice after endorsement and he has not even send a reply for his notice and not paid the amount to him. The above RD was taken for the purpose of renovation of his house which he could not able to meet due to the non-payment of the above RD by OP. But after maturity, he has not given the matured promised amount by the OP which caused much mental pain and agony to him. Hence he is entitled the full amount of Rs.1,33,340/- less the amount paid 12,291/- and the balance Rs.1,21,049/-. Hence the complaint.
OP has stated that the complainant was an SB account holder in the OP bank as No.1002005006760 and that he had started a recurring deposit as No.1002157201218 with effect from 20/06/2013 of Rs.1700 for a period of 60 months and the maturity value was Rs.1,33,340/-. But the further statement that the complainant had given a standing instruction for monthly payment of Rs.1,700/- from his SB account NO.1002005006760 is not true and correct and therefore denied. No such standing instruction was given to the bank. However he used to come to the bank for about 7 months on different dates and on his request installment amount was transferred from his SB account. Thereafter in spite of reminders over phone the complainant did not respond. He has not maintained sufficient amount to make installments payment as he now claims. There is no negligence and no cheated the RD account holder and are allegation made without any basis. The complainant has remitted only 7 installments and on completion of the period he was paid Rs.12,291/- which includes interest accrued on the payment made. There is no merit whatsoever in the contention of the complainant that he is entitled maturity amount of Rs.1,33,340/-. During the currency of the RD scheme after 28/01/2014 he did not contact the branch till 05/09/2018. It is true that the RD was closed on 05/09/2018 on paying Rs,12,291/- to the complainant. The branch staff have sufficiently explained to him the facts transpired and he was convinced about it and hence no written reply was given to him. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for the dismissal of complainant.
At the time of evidence, in order to prove the allegations in the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got the documents marked as Ext.A1 to A5 while the Assistant manager of OP bank Edakkadu branch, Kannur has filed his chief affidavit and submitted documents marked as Ext.B1 and B2. After that the complainant (a practicing lawyer) and the learned counsel for OP filed their respective written argument notes.
Complainant’s case is that complainant is an SB account holder in the OP bank as per account No.1002005006760. He started a RD by account No. 1002157201218 in OP bank on 20/06/2013 for Rs.1700/- per month for a period of 60 months. The matured amount was Rs.1,33,340/-. Complainant alleged that he had given a standing instruction for monthly payment of Rs.1700/- from his SB account. As per the norms the RD became matured on 20/06/2018 and after maturity period when the complainant approached OP bank and asked for closing the above RD, instead of getting the matured amount of Rs.1,33,340/-, OP has given only Rs.12,291/- and closed the RD. Complainant alleged that he is entitled to get the full amount of Rs.1,33,340/- and the action of OP amounts to deficiency of service.
The learned counsel of OP has stated that complainant has not given any standing instruction at the time of starting the Recurring Deposit as alleged by complainant but he had given instructions to transfer in person or through phone call. OP contended that complainant has remitted only 7 installments in the RD started on 20/06/2013 as per such instruction. OP contended that the allegation of complainant about giving standing instruction to transfer the installment amount from SB account is not by verifying the Ext.B1 and B2 account statement of SB account and RD in the name of complainant that the 7 installment transfer from SB account to RD account was made on different dates. OP submitted that if there was standing instruction, the transfer of installment from SB account would have been made on 20th day of every month. Further contended that argument raised by the complainant after adducing the evidence that the standing instruction given to credit and transfer Rs.1700/- monthly from SB account to RD account is one and the same is also not correct. OP contended that this is a new case put forward by the complainant for the 1st time without mentioning either in the complaint or in his chief-affidavit.
On perusal of complaint and chief affidavit, we can see that the contention of complainant is that at the time of opening the FD as well as RD, he had given two standing instructions attached with the FD and RD by saying that the interest in the FD shall be credited to the complainant’s SB account and the RD payment of Rs.1700/- per month shall be taken every month from the complainant’s SB account and to be credited to the RD. Separate standing instructions were given to the OP signed separately in bank’s specified printed forms supplied by the bank. On the other hand OP bank submitted that on perusal of Ext.B1 statement of account pertaining to SB account, it is revealed that the interest in respect of the FD deposit are being transferred quarterly, years from 2006 onwards before starting of the RD account. It is an admitted fact that complainant has started RD account on 20/06/2013. OP submitted that so there was no chance for submitting standing instruction as alleged by the complainant.
Considering these contrasting versions of both parties, the best evidence is to produce the standing instruction if any given by complainant as alleged. OP’s version is that complainant gave standing instruction only to transfer the interest due in the 4 FD Deposits of complainant with the OP bank to his SBI account as per the said instruction interest of the said deposits were being credited to his SB account.
Here, the burden to prove allegation lies up on the complainant. So if OP had not submitted the standing instruction given by complainant to them, complainant could have taken steps to summon the said document before the commission or obtain it through Right to Information Act. Without available the said document we cannot come to a conclusion that complainant had given such a standing instruction as alleged by the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that as a lawyer, we cannot believe that complainant was not checked hi SB account status within these long period of 5 years whether the installment of Rs.1,700/- per month was being credited to his RD account.
Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that complainant herein failed to prove the allegations raised in this complaint. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP. Without remitting installments in the RD account till the mature period, OP has the responsibility only to repay the installments deposited in the RD account with interest as per the condition. The evidence shows that OP has given the 7 installment amount with legal interest Rs.12,291/- to complainant. Though the complainant alleged that the said amount was received with protest, there is no evidence before us to that fact.
Hence based on the discussion above, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP bank and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as per the allegations.
In the result, complaint fails and hence the same is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Original RD passbook.
A2- RD A/c statement 01/06/2013 to 05/09/2018
A3- SB A/c true copy
A4- SB A/c statement
A5- Registered notice true copy dated 05/09/2018
B1- Bank statement of SB account
B2- RD account statement
Pw1- Complainant
Dw1- Shaji A- Witness of OP
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
