Complaint filed on: 26-08-2010
Disposed on: 09-02-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2000/2010
DATED THIS THE 9th FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
M/s. Chamundesware Studio and
Laboratory (Pvt.) Ltd,
No.48/3, Miller Tank Bund Road,
Bangalore-560 052
Represented by its Chair person,
And Managing Director
Smt.Rajalakshmi Sadagopan,
V/s
Opposite party: -
Canara Bank,
Branch officer at No.19/7,
Maruthi Mansion,
Cunningham Road,
Bangalore-52
Represented by its
Branch Manager,
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite party [hereinafter called as OP) are that she had re-invested a sum of Rs.17,23,274-00 with OP on 9-7-2007 with interest at 9.50% per annum maturable on 9-7-2010 which could have come to Rs.22,53,986-00 under the Kamadhenu Deposit. That due to their financial crisis, her company had availed over draft facility of Rs.15,50,000/- being 90% of the fixed deposit amount from the OP with interest at 11.50% per annum. That she requested the OP vide letter dated 11-6-2009 to convert the existing over draft account into a current account. That OP had replied through their letter dated 20-7-2009 asking her to pre-close the fixed deposit account and adjust the proceeds to the over draft account. It was required the company’s resolution. OP had also informed them after adjusting the fixed deposit amount to over draft account the balance in the fixed deposit amount will not be given to them and it will be kept in the suspense account. On 26-8-2009 OP again sent another letter giving 10 days time for foreclosure of the deposit and adjust this proceeds to over draft account. That she sought 10 days times to send reply, but the OP to her surprise hurriedly foreclosed the fixed deposit and adjusted the proceeds to over draft account and kept Rs.3,37,140-30 in a sundry deposit and they have not received any resolution from her company. Therefore the complainant attributing deficiency in the service of the OP has stated that the OP has not informed her as to what happened to their balance amount of Rs.3,37,140-30 of the fixed deposit. Maturity value would have reached Rs.22,53,986-00 and after deducting Rs.16,58,798-00 towards over draft amount, she is entitled to the balance of Rs.5,95,188-00 and thereby she has prayed for a direction to the OP to pay her the balance amount of Rs.3,37,140-30 paise kept in the sundry deposit account and to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,58,047-70 towards the balance maturity value of Kamadhenu deposit and to award interest and cost.
2. OP has appeared through his advocate and field version without disputing the transaction that the complainant had with them regarding fixed deposit and over draft facility the complainant had availed. The OP has further denied that through his letter dated 26-8-2009 he had fixed 10 days time for foreclose of the fixed deposit amount and to adjust it towards over draft account and stated that options were given to the complainant to clear the over draft and continue to operate the OD account till the fixed deposit account was matured and stated in case of default to clear the OD he had informed the complainant of foreclose the fixed deposit amount to adjust the proceeds towards over draft facility. It is admitted by the OP it is only at that stage he had given 10 days time to the complainant to clear the over draft facility otherwise fixed deposit account will be foreclosed as indicated in the earlier letter. The OP further admitted after foreclosure of the fixed deposit account adjusted FD amount and has kept the balance amount Rs.3,37,140.30 in sundry deposit, as CBI court enquiry was pending and civil suits were also pending against the complainant and stated it is because of pendency of CBI enquiry and litigations, he had kept the balance amount in sundry account. That the complainant on the over draft account had become over due to the extent of Rs.77,963.70 and therefore over draft facility was not allowed. The OP has further denied that the complainant is entitled for maturity value of Rs.22,53,986-00 and stated that after adjusting the proceeds towards over draft account the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.5,98,188-00. The OP denying that the complainant is entitled for the full maturity value of the fixed deposit account as claimed by the complainant has justified his action in keeping Rs.3,37,140-30 in the sundry deposit and stated that has been done as per the bank procedure and has referred to certain Civil suits stated have been pending against the complainant and has therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the senior manger of the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a copy of terms deposit application, copies of correspondences that went on between himself and the OP, copy of legal notice she got issued to the OP. OP has produced copies of plaints OS No.25716/2007, OS No.25413/2008 and OS No.25632/2008. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service by foreclosing the fixed deposit amount and adjusting towards over draft account and by keeping the balance fixed deposit proceeds in sundry account?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: Answered in part in the affirmative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: As already referred to above from the contention of the parties, we find no dispute between them, with regard to this complainant having had maintained over draft account and fixed deposit account with OP and quantum involved in these two transactions. The complainant alleges that the OP without affording them any opportunity hurriedly foreclosed the fixed deposit account and adjusted towards over draft account, thereby caused loss to her and further alleged that the OP has caused deficiency in keeping the balance fixed deposit proceeds in sundry account without allowing her to draw that amount.
7. With the above allegations let us see, whether the OP has hurriedly foreclosed the fixed deposit account. OP has contended when the complainant become over due to an extent of Rs.77,963.70 towards the over draft facility, they could not allow it therefore they exercised their general lien to foreclose the fixed deposit account after affording opportunity to the complainant to close the over draft account. We seen the letter of OP dated 20-7-2009 produced by the complainant in which the OP has made it clear that over draft facility availed by the complainant was mounting day by day and requested the complainant to clear the over drawings in the account or else he would close the FDR account and adjust the proceeds to the OD account. Thereafter the OP again on 26-8-2009 wrote another letter to the complainant company mentioning the over due amount of Rs.77,963.70 on the over draft account gave certain option to the complainant either to close the OD account and continue the fixed deposit account until it is matured on 9-7-2010 and told the complainant if she can not operate OD account, the FD account can be closed and adjusted to the OD account. In this regard the OP gave 10 days time to the complainant to exercise one of the options suggested to her and in the event of failing to exercise such option within 10 days, he would close the FD account and adjust towards OD account. But the complainant did not respond to that letter of the OP but sent reply only on 11-9-2009 informing the OP that they received OP letter dated 26-8-2009 on 9-9-2009 and they would send reply before 19-9-2009, but even then the complainant failed to send any reply to the letter of the OP and to exercise any of the options given to them. The OP therefore waiting till 23-8-2009 sent a letter to the complainant having foreclosed the FD account adjusting the proceeds towards OD account and keeping the excess proceeds of FD amounting to Rs.3,37,140.30 in sundry account because of certain cases. The complainant has not disputed these facts, developments and the action initiated by the OP that when the OD account had become over due and she did not choose to close that account. The OP thus by affording opportunity to the complainant did exercise his general lien to adjust the FD amount of the complainant OD account which can not be said have been done hurriedly and in violation of any norms.
8. Coming to the act of the OP in keeping the balance fixed deposit proceeds of Rs.3,37,140.30 in sundry account is concerned, the OP has given reasons stating that there was enquiry pending and civil court cases were also pending against the complainant. Therefore he kept the balance amount in the sundry account. But the OP has not placed any materials or documents before us to prove any instruction received by them from any competitive authority or any order of a court which prevented them from disbursing the balance fixed deposit proceeds or a direction to keep the proceeds in sundry account. OP has also not produced any guidelines of RBI or any rule or condition which necessitated them to keep that excess fixed deposit proceeds in sundry account. In the absence of any legal duty or obligation, the OP should not have kept that excess fixed deposit proceeds in the sundry account and should have taken step to see that excess proceeds was paid or deposited in the complainant’s account or atleast should have re-invested in fixed deposit or credited to the account of the complainant allowing her to operate. But OP did nothing and contrary to that arbitrarily found to have chosen to keep that amount in sundry account which has no force of law. This act of the OP, in our view is nothing short of deficiency in his service for which he is accountable.
9. The complainant has prayed for full matured value of the fixed deposit invested by her, but when fixed deposit was foreclosed before maturity date towards legal liability of the complainant after giving her an opportunity she is not entitled for the whole maturity value of fixed deposit. However, she is entitled for refund of Rs.3,37,140.30 which is the excess fixed deposit proceeds with interest from the date of foreclosure of the fixed deposit. With the result, we answer point No.1 partly in the affirmative. Accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.3,37,140.30 to the complainant with interest at 9.05% per annum as that was agreed to be paid on the fixed deposit amount from the date of foreclosure till the date of its repayment.
OP shall also pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 9th February 2011.
Member Member President
