Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/578/2012

INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHALAKSHMI - Opp.Party(s)

SHEELA AND SEKAR

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

Present:

                                             Thiru J. Jayaram,                               PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                              Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                           MEMBER

F.A. No. 578 / 2012

(Against the Order in C.C.No.161/2011, dated 30-11-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                                                Dated this the 24^th day of JULY, 2015

The Branch Manager,                ]

Indian Overseas Bank,              ]

Kurichi Branch Office,               ]

SIDCO Industrial Estate, ]  ..     Appellant / Opposite Party

SIDCO Post,                             ]

Coimbatore – 641 021               ]

 

                   Vs.      

Dhanalakshmi,                          ]

W/o Manikaraj,                          ]

2/38F, Aminiammal Colony,       ]

Maachampalayam,                    ]

Sundarapuram Post,                  ]  ..     Respondent / Complainant

Coimbatore – 641 024               ]

  

This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 14-07-2015 and on hearing the arguments of appellant and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellant:     -        M/s. Sheela & Sekar

Counsel for Respondent:  -        Notice served, absent

This Appeal is filed by the opposite party against the order of DCDRF, Coimbatore in C.C. No.161/2010, dated 30-11-2011, allowing the complaint.

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

             The case of the complainant is that she had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- on 27-07-1999 as fixed deposit with the opposite party for three years, and the maturity deposit amount is Rs.62,000/- for two years; but before the maturity of the deposit amount, the complainant was in need of money and so she approached the opposite party bank on 21-09-2000 to close the fixed deposit and repay the amount with accrued interest as on that date, but the opposite party refused to repay the amount stating that the Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, had informed that the deposit amount is connected with a criminal case filed against her brother in C.C. No.745/2003 on the file of Judicial Magistrate’s Court No.VI, Coimbatore and the case was disposed of on 23-12-2003. There is nothing about the complainant’s fixed deposit amount in the order, but even then the opposite party is refusing to release the amount. This amounts to deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint.

2.       According to the opposite party, the Inspector of Police, Crime Branch, Coimbatore instructed the opposite party bank not to refund the amount to the complainant since the money is involved in the criminal case in CC No.745/2003 pending before the JM No.VI, Coimbatore. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not refunding the fixed deposit maturity amount to the complainant. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite party has preferred the appeal.

4.       It is pertinent to note that there is no allegation or evidence that the amount deposited by the complainant / respondent is concerned in the criminal case. Admittedly, the criminal complaint was against the complaint’s brother and the complainant had nothing to do with the criminal case. The criminal case is already disposed of and there is no whisper about the money deposited by the complainant in the bank, in the judgment and it is abundantly clear that the money deposited by the complainant had nothing to do with the criminal case.  

5.       In these circumstances, the refusal of the opposite party bank to release the fixed deposit amount, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

6.       The District Forum has come to the right conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has allowed the complaint and has passed an order directing the opposite party to refund the maturity amount of Rs.62,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 27-07-2001 till the date of repayment of the money to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony, and to pay costs of Rs.1,000/-  

7.       We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The award passed by the District Forum is quite reasonable. We agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum. There is no merit in the appeal, and the appeal is liable to the dismissed.

8.       In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

        P. BAKIYAVATHI                               J. JAYARAM          

           MEMBER                                  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER