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.7 / 2004 TUESDAY THE 23rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010. A. Senthil, S/o. K.Anandapadmanabhan, Executive, ICICI Infotech Ltd., No.6, L.I.C. Colony, Ist street, Saithapuram, Vellore 632 001. … Complainant. - Vs – The Vellore Co-operative Town Bank Ltd., 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. Anandhapadmanaban & 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 fixed deposits with the opposite party and the details of the same are as under: S.No. Date of Deposit Amount of deposit Date of Interest Maturity Maturity offered amount. 1. 8.10.97 25,000 8.11.98 14% 29,018 2. 8.10.97 9,286 8.5.2000 12% 11,284 ----------- 40,302 ----------- The deposit receipts have not mentioned the dates by which the deposits have to be renewed on maturity. The envelop containing the plastic covers of the deposit certificates were in the custody of his brother A.Ramesh, Advocate. They have been mingled with the 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, since the complainant was aware that few deposits got matured in April. It is the duty to inform inadvance about the maturity of the deposits, by the opposite party mentioning the different rates of interest offered for different periods of renewals and how the deposits have to be renewed or enchased. Failing to perform this essential duty the opposite party by negligence and deficiency of service, had caused financial loss, mental agony and distress to the complainant. The complainant’s contention was as one of the deposits which got matured on 8.10.98, was actually renewed much later on 3.5.2000, with retrospective effect by offering compound rate of interest. The overdue deposits continued to remain as such with the opposite party and has not lost its identity. The opposite party had agreed to renew the overdue deposits by offering a simple interest of 9.5% p.a from the date of maturity to the date of renewal, if they were renewed for a further period of 2 years. If the renewal was sought for lesser period, the interest would be reduced accordingly. The complainant was left with no choice and latently agreed for the renewal of the overdue deposits for a further period of 2 years from 13.6.02 to 13.6.04. an interest amount calculated at 9.5% simple interest from the date of maturity to 13.6.02 amounting to Rs 12,164/- was credited to the maturity amount of Rs 40,302/- and the total sum was Rs 52,466/- (maturity amount 40,302/- + interest 12,164/-) on 13.6.02. The opposite party had continued to utilize the 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. Due to the deficiency of the service of the opposite party, he was made to suffer mental torture and distress and the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant, damages as prayed for by him. He prayed for directing the opposite party to pay the complainant, the interest due to him, had the deposits been renewed on the dates of their maturity, on cumulative basis up to 13.6.02, on which date they have been actually renewed by the opposite party and to work out the interest as claimed up to 13.6.02 on the over due matured deposits and deduct there from a sum of Rs.12,164/- already offered by the opposite party as simple interest at 9.5%, treat the balance amount as a separate deposit and pay interest thereon from 13.6.02 depending upon the further period up to which it would remain as a deposit and also to pay as damages 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 complaint. 2. The averments in the opposite party is as follows; The opposite party does not admit any of the allegations in the complaint save those that are specifically admitted herein and put the complainant to strict proof of rest of them all. It is true that the complainant had two fixed deposits and the total value of these deposits comes to Rs 40,302/-. The first deposit was made on 8.10.1997 and the maturity date is 8.11.1998 with 14% interest cumulative. The deposit no.2 is made on 8.10.1998 and it matured on 2.5.2000 and the interest is 12% p.a at 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 receipt 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 envelop containing plastic covers of the deposit receipt was mixed up with other documents and so the petitioner was not able to note the date of maturity is not at all true. Further it will be seen that the 1st deposit was made on 8.10.97 and it mature on 8.11.1998. Then on 31.7.1999 he puts another deposit like that on 8.10.1998. He is going to the bank with the money to deposit in the fixed deposit scheme when he should have known about the 1st deposit which will mature on 8.11.1998 as it is with him. So the complainant must have known the date of maturity. He could have renewed it if he wanted on 9.11.1998 at least as certaining the date of maturity of the 1st deposit as well as the 2nd deposit from 9.5.2002 by doing so. But he did not do so. 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 fixed deposit receipts themselves and it is also stated under note “Interest will cease at the expiration of the above period when this receipt must be sent in for payment or renewal endorsed by the depositor and have appropriate revenue stamp affixed. 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 executive of ICICI Infotech limited. His father is an advocate auditor and the other deposits concerned in 4 other CDOPs, 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 4 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 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, so after having received the reply in the month of May. 2002 the petitioner renew the deposits in June, 2002, that itself shows he has understood the letter and contents of the letter of the Reserve Bank clearly that it is not incumbent on the part of the bank to send intimation regarding the date of maturity of the deposit. The complainant mentions that in April, 2003 he got intimation with reference to the deposit which is about be matured from the very same bank. It is true that in the year 2003. The bank followed the advice given by the Reserve Bank of India and sent the intimation. The complainant cannot take advantage of this intimation and state that the previous non-intimating of the maturity dates of deposits is caules 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 the duty amounting to deficiency of services on the part of the bank. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the bank in any way whatsoever to cause mental agony torture and distress to the complainant since the bank has acted only as per rules and directives of the Reserve Bank and therefore there is no payment of compensation for that. There are no merits or bonafides in the complaint and it is therefore 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 ExA4 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 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 had two fixed deposits with the opposite part’s bank and the total value of these deposits comes to Rs.40,302/-. The 1st re-investment deposit Ex.A1 was made on 8.10.98 for the period of 19 months and the maturity date was on 8.5.00 and the 2nd re-investment deposit Ex.A2 was made on 8.10.97 for the period of 13 months and the maturity date was 8.11.98. 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 two overdue 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 overdue 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’sS.B. account. The absence of any prior intimation with necessary details before the maturity of the said two deposits and also the failure to intimate any alleged change of policy in renewing the overdue 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 two fixed deposit receipts Ex.A1 & Ex.A2. It is also stated in the said 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 two fixed deposits if he wanted on maturity date mentioned in the said deposits Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 but he did not do so. It is further contended that the complainant is an executive of ICICI Infotech limited. 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.B3, dt.8.10.98 it is mentioned that received from (Mr. A. Senthil) the complainant Rs.9286/- only as a re-investment deposit repayable 19 months after date and the 2nd investment deposit receipt Ex.A2 & Ex.B2,dt. 8.10.97, it is mentioned that received from (Mr.A. Senthil) the complainant Rs.25,000/- as a re-investment deposit repayable 13 months after date. From further perusal of reinvestment deposit receipts Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 and Ex.B2 & Ex.B3, 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 deposit a sum of Rs.9,286/- was made on 8.10.98 and the maturity date was on 8.5.2000 and the 2nd deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- was made on 8.10.97 and the maturity date was on 8.11.98. The complainant could have renewed the above two deposits if he wanted on 9.10.98 & 9.5.2000 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 & Ex.A2 were in the custody of his brother A. Ramesh, Advocate. They have been mingled with the 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 reinvestment deposit receipts and it is also mentioned in the deposits receipts under note that interest will cease at the expiration of the period mentioned in the said receipts. 10. The complainant has not denied the contention of the opposite party that the complainant an executive of ICICI Infotech limited, 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 & Ex.A2 were in the custody of his brother Mr.A. Ramesh, Advocate and they have been mingled with the clients documents is not acceptable. It is admitted facts of the parties that the date of maturity is mentioned on the top in the fixed deposit receipts. It is clearly mentioned in the reinvestment deposit receipts Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 under note that interest will cease at the expiration of the 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 to inform inadvance about 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 opposite party is not acceptable. 10. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A4 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 - 3.5.00 - x-copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt.. Ex.A2 – 8.10.97 - X-copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt.. Ex.A3- 13.6.02 - X-copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt. Ex.A4- 13.6.02 - X-copy of Fixed Deposit Receipt. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1- 13.6.02 - Statement of current account for the Vellore Co-op. Town Bank Ltd, Ex.B2- 8.10.97 - Re-investment Deposit Receipt. Ex.B2- 3.5.00 - Re-investment 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 | | 
