Kerala

StateCommission

A/10/379

The General Manager,Co-Operative Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

H.O.Arun Titty - Opp.Party(s)

B.S.Mohankumar

18 Sep 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/10/379

(Arisen out of Order Dated 16/11/2009 in Case No. CC/02/532 of District Thiruvananthapuram)

1. The General Manager,Co-Operative Bank

Trivandrum

Kerala

...........Appellant(s)

Versus

1. H.O.Arun Titty

Kulamada

Kollam

Kerala

...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	Sri.M.V.VISWANATHAN PRESIDING MEMBER

PRESENT:

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL NO.379/10

JUDGMENT DATED 18.9.2010

PRESENT:

SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN -- MEMBER

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER

1. The General Manager.

Thiruvananthapuram District

Co-operatove Bank, -- APPELLANTS

P.O.Box 5122, Fort,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Manager,

Thiruvananthapuram District

Co-operative Bank,

Attingal.

(By Adv.B.S.Mohankumar)

Vs.

H.O.Arun Titty,

Arun Nivas, Kulamada, -- RESPONDENT

Kizhakkanela.P.O,

Kollam.

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar)

JUDGMENT

SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN,JUDICIAL MEMBER

Appellants were the opposite parties and respondent was the complainant in OP.No.532/02 on the file of CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties due to their failure to release the maturity value of Rs.14,712.90 on the cash certificate. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency in service. They contended that the guardian of the complainant, who was then minor, had availed a loan on the security of the cash certificate. It is further contended that the loan amount with interest accrued thereon is due to the bank. Thus, the opposite party justified their action in not releasing the amount covered by the cash certificate dated 17.1.86.

Before the Forum below, the complainant was examined as PW1. A witness was examined as DW1 on the part of the opposite parties. Exts.P1 to P4 and D1 to D4 documents were also marked on the side of the parties to the said complaint in OP.532/02. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.14,712.90 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum and cost of Rs.1000/- with a further direction to pay interest at the rate of 18%, if the decree amount is not paid within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is preferred.

We heard the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties and the respondent/complainant at the admission stage of this appeal.

There is no dispute that D1 cash certificate dated 17.1.86 was issued in favour of the complainant who was a minor at the relevant time. The maturity value of D1 cash certificate is Rs. 14,712.90. The maturity date was 18.1.01. There is no dispute that the complainant had attained majority and he requested the opposite parties to release the maturity amount on the strength of D1 cash certificate. But, the opposite parties refused the aforesaid claim of the complainant on the ground that the guardian of the minor had availed a loan on the strength of D1 cash certificate and that the loan amount with interest accrued thereon is due to the bank from the lonee Karthyayani. Admittedly, the said deposit was effected in the name of the complainant H.O.Arun and D1 cash certificate is also issued in the name of the minor. The opposite parties had committed a mistake in advancing loan to the lonee Karthyayani on the strength of D1 cash certificate which was issued in the name of minor Arun. There is no document available on record to show that the lonee Karthyayani had obtained the sanction or authority to pledge the D1 cash certificate issued in the name of minor Arun. So, the complainant has every right to get the amount covered by D1 cash certificate. The Forum below has rightly directed the opposite parties to release the maturity amount covered by D1 cash certificate. The failure on the part of the opposite parties to release the maturity amount due to the complainant would amount to deficiency in service. So, the impugned order passed by the Forum below directing payment of the maturity amount of Rs.14,712.90 on the strength of D1 cash certificate is to be upheld. The Forum below has also awarded reasonable interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 18.1.01, the date of maturity of the cash certificate with a cost of Rs.1000/-. The opposite parties are also burdened with the liability to pay interest at the rate of 18% in the event of default to make the payment of the decree debt. We do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 16.11.09 passed by the Forum below in OP.532/02 . The present appeal lacks bonafides and liable to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. Hence we do so.