BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.10 / 2004 TUESDAY THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. A. Rahgavan, S/o. K.Anandapadmanabhan, Engineer, ICICI Infotech Ltd., No.6, L.I.C. Colony, Saithapuram, Vellore 632 001. … Complainant. - Vs – The Vellore Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., Vellore, Rep. by its General Manager, No.12, Filterbed Road, Vellore 632 001. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 16.11.2010, in the presence of Thiru. K. Ananda Padamanaban & A. Ramesh, Advocates for the complainant and Thiru. A.B. Gangadharan, Advocate for the opposite party, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was having certain fxed deposits with the opposite party and the details of the same are asunder: S.No Date of Amount of Date of Interest Maturity Deposits deposits Maturity offered amount 1. 8.7.97 15,000 8.8.98 14% 17,411 2. 8.8.97 10,000 8.9.98 14% 11,607 3. 8.8.97 10,000 8.9.98 14% 11,607 4. 8.9.98 5,803 8.6.2000 10% 7,259 ------------- 47,884 ------------- The deposit receipts have not mentioned the date by which the deposits have to be renewed after maturity. The envelope containing the plastic covers of the deposit receipts were in the custody of his brother A.Ramesh, Advocate. They have been mixed up with the client documents and in the absence of any intimation from the opposite party, the complainant was under a bonafide belief that the deposits are yet to be matured, Actually a few more deposits of the complainant get matured only in April, 2003. It is the duty of the opposite party to inform inadvance about the maturity of the deposits, the various rates of interest offered for different periods of renewals and the manner by which either the deposits can be renewed or enchased. By failing to observe this prime duty the opposite party, by its negligence and deficiency in service had caused financial less, mental agony and distress to the complainant. Immediately on tracing the ever-due matured deposit certificates he contacted the opposite party and requested for the renewal of the deposits from the date of their maturity, carrying interest prevailing on these dates. The opposite party had agreed to renew the over-due deposits by offering a simple interest of 9.5% from the date of maturity to the date of renewal depending upon the further period upto which the renewals are sought. The absence of any intimation earlier either which regard to the maturity of deposits or change in its policy of renewing over due deposits (actually there was no deviation) will clearly prove the negligence, the deficiency of service and the utter disregard in following the procedures. Due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party, he was made to suffer mental tortures, agony and distress and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant, apart from paying him, the interest legally due to him. He directing the opposite party to pay the complainant, the interest due to him, had the deposits been renewed on the dates of their maturity upto 13.06.02, on which date they have been actually renewed by the opposite party and to work out the cumulative inerest accured upto 13.6.02 on the ever-due matured deposits and deduct there from a sum of Rs 15,868/- offered as simple interest at 9.5%, treat the balance amount as a separate deposit from 13.6.02 and pay interest thereon, depending upon the period upto which it would remain as a deposit and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental torture, agony and distress suffered by the complainant, and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of the complainant. 2. The averments in the counter filed by the opposite party is as follows: The respondent does not admit any of the allegations in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and puts the complainant to strict proof of rest of them all. It is true that the complainant had fixed deposits as alleged in Para 1 of the complaint. The fixed deposits are four in number and the total value of these deposits come to Rs.47,884/-. The first three deposits were made on 8.8.97 and 8.8.97 respectively 8.7.97 and their maturity date is 8.8.98, 8.9.98 and 8.9.98 respectively with 14% p.a. interest cumulative. The fourth deposit was made on 8.9.98 and its maturity date is 8.6.2000 with interest at 10% cumulative. In the deposit receipts it is clearly mentioned that interest will cease at the expiration of the period of deposits. It is not correct to state that the deposit receipts should have mentioned the date within which the deposits have to be renewed after maturity. There is no compulsion that he should renew the deposit. It is left to the choice of the depositor either to renew the deposit or to receive the money due. The deposit receipts were mixed up with other documents and so the petitioner was not able to note the date of maturity is not at all true. The bank should send intimation to the complainant about the date of maturity of each deposit is not obligatory since the date of maturity is mentioned on the top in the receipts. This deposit earns simple interest as per R.B.I directions. The rate of interest payable on this deposit is subject to the directions that may be issued by the R.B.I from time to time. The complainant is an Engineer, his father is an Advocate Auditor and the other deposits concerned in 4 other C.D.O.Ps filed along with this complaint are all sons. All are well educated, practicing lawyer, income tax auditor and government servants. But these people know pretty well that the policy of the government is to reduce the interest on the high cost deposits and therefore gradually every year interest was being reduced in all the banks on the instructions of the Reserve Bank of India which has to be followed by the banks. Therefore is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which had caused any mental mental agony, torture or distress. The bank has done everything as per rules and instructions and directives received from the Reserve Bank of India from time to time undeviatingly. The bank has not been sending any intimation about the date of maturity before the year 2002. The complainant mentions in April, 2003 he got an intimation with reference to the another deposit which is about to be matured from the very same bank. It is true. In the year 2003 the bank followed the advice given by the Reserve Bank of India and sent the intimation. The complainant cannot take advantages of this intimation and state that the previous non-intimating of the maturity dates of deposits is callous on the part of the bank since it is not the duty of the bank as per the bank law to compulsorily intimate the date of maturity of the deposits and failure to do so amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the bank. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the bank in anyway whatsoever to cause any mental agony, torture and distress to the complainant since the bank has soted only as per rules and directions of the Reserve Bank of India and therefore there is no payment of compensation for that. For these reasons it is prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with the cost of this opposite party. 3. Now the points for consideration are: a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party? b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 4. Ex.A1 to ExA7 were marked on the side of the complainant and no documents were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 5. Point No. (a) It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant was having the following fixed deposit with the opposite party’s bank : the 1st re-investment deposit Ex.A1 was made on 8.7.97 for the period of 13 months and the maturity date was on 8.8.98, the 2nd re-investment deposit Ex.A2 was made on 8.8.97 for the period of 13 months and the maturity date was on 8.9.98, the 3rd re-investment deposit Ex.A3 was made on 8.8.97 for the period of 13 months and the maturity date was on 8.9.98, and the 4th re-investment deposit receipt Ex.A4 was made on 8.9.99 for the period of 21 months and the maturity date was on 8.6.00. 6. The complainant contended that it is the duty of the opposite party’s bank to inform inadvance about the maturity of the above deposits and in the absence of any intimation from the opposite party’s bank, the complainant was under a bonafide impression that the deposits have not been matured. The above said four re-investment deposits continued to remain as such with the opposite party and have not lost its identity and the opposite party had agreed to renew the said deposits by offering a simple interest of 9.5% p.a. from the date of maturity to the date of renewal, if the said two deposits were renewed for a further period of two years. The opposite party due to utilize the said deposit amounts even after the dates of their maturity to its own benefit and did not care to take any action either to renew or refund the amount due to the complainant’s S.B. account. The absence of any prior intimation with necessary details before the maturity of the said four deposits and also the failure to intimate any alleged change of policy in renewing the said deposits will clearly prove the negligence, the deficiency of the service on the part of the opposite party. 7. The opposite party contended that the opposite party’s bank send an intimation to the complainant about the date of maturity of each deposit is not obligatory since the date of maturity is mentioned on the top in the four reinvestment deposit receipts Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 themselves. It is also stated in the Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 reinvestment deposit receipt under note that “interest will cease at the expiration of the above period when the receipt must be sent in for payment or renewal endorsed by the depositor and have appropriate revenue stamp affixed. The complainant could have renewed the said four reinvestment deposits if he wanted on maturity date mentioned in the said deposit receipts but he did not do so. It is further contended that the complainant is an Engineer, his father is an advocate auditor and the other deposits concerned in four other Ops filed along with this complaint are all sons. All are well educated, practicing lawyer, income tax auditor and Government servants. In order to claim interest at the same rate at which he deposited the money even after lapse of four years he has keeping quiet and he wants to take the plea that he has not been intimated and therefore he can claim interest at the original rate. The opposite party’s banks have done everything as per rules and instructions and directives received from the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. Therefore there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party’s bank in any way whatsoever to cause mental agony torture and distress to the complainant. 8. From the perusal of 1st re-investment deposit receipt Ex.A1 & Ex.B2 dt. 8.7.97 it is mentioned that received from (Mr. A. Ragavan) the complainant Rs.15,000/- only as a reinvestment deposit repayable 13 month after date, the 2nd re-investment deposit receipt Ex.A2 & Ex.B3 dt. 8.8.97 it is mentioned that received from (Mr. A. Ragavan) the complainant Rs.10,000/- only as a reinvestment deposit repayable 13 month after date, Ex.A3 re-investment deposit receipt Ex.A3 & Ex.4 dt. 8.8.97 it is mentioned that received from (Mr. A. Ragavan) the complainant Rs.10,000/- only as a reinvestment deposit repayable 13 month after date and the 4th re-investment deposit Ex.A4 & Ex.B5 dt. 8.7.97 it is mentioned that received from (Mr. A. Ragavan) the complainant Rs.5803/- only as a reinvestment deposit receipt repayable 21 month after date. From the further perusal of reinvestment deposit receipts Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 it is seen that the opposite party’s bank stated in the said receipts under note that interest will cease at the expiration of the period mentioned in the said receipts. The 1st reinvestment deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- was made on 8.7.97 and the maturity date was on 8.8.98, the 2nd t reinvestment deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- was made on 8.7.97 and the maturity date was on 8.8.98, the 3rd reinvestment deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- was made on 8.8.97 and the maturity date was on 8.9.98 and the 4th reinvestment deposit a sum of Rs.5803/- was made on 8.9.98 and the maturity date was on 8.6.00. The complainant could have renewed the said four deposits if he wanted after maturity date i.e. on 9.8.98, 9.9.98, 9,9,98, abd 9.6.00 respectively, but he did not do so. 9. The contention of the complainant that the envelop containing the plastic covers of deposit certificate Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were in the custody of his brother A. Ramesh, Advocate. They have been mingled with his clients documents and in the absence of any intimation from the opposite party, the complainant was under a bonafide impression that the deposits have not been matured and it is the duty of opposite party to inform inadvance about the maturity of the deposits but the bank failed to inform it to the complainant. According to the opposite party, the bank send an intimation to the complainant about the date of maturity of each deposit is not obligatory since the date of maturity is mentioned on the top in the four reinvestment deposit receipts and it is also mentioned in the deposit receipt under note that interest will cease at the expiration of the period mentioned in the receipts Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. 10. The complainant has not denied the contention of the opposite party that the complainant is an Engineer, his father is an advocate auditor and the other deposits concerned in four other Ops filed along with this complaint are all his family members. All are well educated, practicing lawyer, income tax auditor and Government servants. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the envelop containing the plastic covers of deposit certificates Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 were in the custody of his brother Mr.A. Ramesh, Advocate and they have been mingled with his clients documents is not acceptable. It is admitted facts of the parties that the date of maturity is mentioned on the top in the reinvestment deposit receipts. It is clearly mentioned that in the reinvestment deposit receipt Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 under note that interest will cease at the expiration of the period mentioned in the receipts. But the complainant did not renew the said deposit after the maturity date. Further, there is no specific rule or direction by the Reserve Bank of India about the intimation to the complainant regarding inform inadvance the maturity date. Therefore the contention of the complainant that it is the duty of the opposite party to inform inadvance about the maturity of the deposit and failing to inform the maturity date is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is not acceptable. 11. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A7 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B5, we have come to the conclusion that the complainants herein have not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainants herein. 12. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 13. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 23rd day of November 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 – 8.7.97 - X-copy of the reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.A2- 8.8.97 - X-copy of the reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.A3- 8.8.97 - X-copy of the reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.A4- 4.5.00 - X-copy of the reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.A5- 13.6.02 - X-copy of the deposit receipt. Ex.A6- 13.6.02 - X-copy of the deposit receipt. Ex.A7- 5.5.03 - Letter from the opp party to the complainant. Opposite party’s’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 13.6.02 - Adjustment slip. Ex.B2- 8.7.97 - Reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.B3- 8.8.97 - Reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.B4- 8.8.97 - Reinvestment deposit receipt. Ex.B5- 4.5.00 - Reinvestment deposit receipt. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
