BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

C.C. No. 08/2008 Filed on 17.01.2008

Dated : 30.10.2009

Complainant:

Abdul Jaleel, S/o Mohammed Ismael, A.J. Building, Vadasserikonam, Varkala, Chirayinkil.

(By adv. Ranjit. R)

Opposite party:

Manager, Indian Overseas bank, Varkala Branch, Maithanam, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram.

This O.P having been taken as heard on 30.09.2009, the Forum on 30.10.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT

The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant was a timber contractor who deposited a sum of Rs. 30,518.60 with opposite party vide deposit No. 428/90 RDP 271/90, 23.10.1990, that when demanded the said deposited amount with interest opposite party released the principal amount only to the person authorised by him and that opposite party did not pay interest to the principal amount. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to pay interest on the deposited amount along with compound interest to complainant.

Opposite party filed written reply stating that deposit No. 271/90 was renewed as RDP 627/91 on 17.01.1992, which matured for payment on 17.01.1997, that the said deposit was in the name of Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur and that as per DFO's letter PC 2230/73 dated 26.06.2007, payment of maturity amount was made to him by means of D.D No. 1580 45912 dated 26.07.2007. It is stated in the reply that as per the existing guidelines of the bank/RBI no interest is allowed on a deposit after due date, except in case of renewal and that in this case opposite party was not approached either by the depositor or by the pledgee to renew the deposit for a further period. Hence opposite party expressed their inability to pay further interest on the deposit after maturity.

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get interest on the amount deposited?

2. Whether there has been deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and Exts. P1 to P10 were marked. Opposite party has not filed affidavit. Opposite party furnished copy of the deposit receipt along with reply.

Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant was a timber contractor who deposited a sum of Rs. 30,518.60 with opposite party vide deposit No. 428/90 RDP 271/90, that when demanded the said deposited amount with interest opposite party released the principal amount only to the person authorized by him and that opposite party did not pay interest to the principal amount. Ext. P1 is the copy of the order dated 18.01.1994 in O.P 114/1992 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thiruvananthapuram. Ext. P2 is the copy of the acknowledgement dated 23.10.1990 issued by the bank. As per Ext. P2, Account No. is RDP 271/90, name of depositor is Mr. M. Abdul Jaleel and nomination in favour of Mrs. A. Bismi dated 23.10.1990 has been registered in the books of the bank. Ext. P3 is the copy of the letter dated 17.01.1997 sent by opposite party to complainant informing him that the deposit dated 17.01.1992 with opposite party has matured for payment on 17.01.1997. Ext. P5 is the copy of the letter dated 08.06.2007 addressed to Forest Divisional Officer, Punalur by the complainant. Ext. P6 is the copy of the letter dated 05.01.2007 addressed to opposite party by the complainant. Ext. P7 is the copy of the letter dated 16.07.2007 sent by opposite party to complainant. It is pertinent to note that the case of the complainant is that he had deposited Rs. 30,518/- with opposite party vide No. 428/90 RDP 271/90, 23.10.1990 with opposite party, but he has not furnished the said deposit receipt issued by the opposite party. It has been the say of the opposite party that Deposit No. 271/90 was renewed as RDP 627/97 on 17.01.1992 which matured for payment on 17.01.1997, that the said deposit was in the name of Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur, and that as per Divisional Forest Officer's letter PC 2230/73 dated 26.06.2007 opposite party made payment of maturity of Rs. 37,407/- to him by means of DD No. 158045912 dated 26.07.2007. It is further stated in the reply filed by the opposite party that as per the existing guidelines of the bank/RBI no interest is allowed on a deposit after due date, except in case of renewal. It is further stated in reply that opposite party was not approached either by the depositor or by the pledgee to renew the deposit for a further period. Opposite party has produced the photocopy of RDP 627/91 paid to DFO, which is on the records. A perusal of deposit receipt furnished by the opposite party would reveal that RDP 271/90 got renewed on 17.01.1992 in the name of the Divisional Forest Officer, Punalur, A/c Mr. M. Abdul Jaleel, Account No. is RDP 627/91, amount deposited is Rs. 19,731/-, period is 60 months, interest rate is 13%. Amount repayable on maturity is Rs. 37,407/- and due date is 17.01.1997. In this regard we need to highlight the contents of Ext. P3 letter issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. P3 opposite party had informed the complainant about the maturity of deposit for payment and requested him to come to bank with receipt. The burden is upon the complainant to prove that he had renewed the said deposit on or after the maturity date 17.01.1997. There is no material on record to show that complainant had approached the bank and renewed the said deposit on or after the maturity date 17.01.1997 nor did complainant furnish Deposit Receipt to substantiate his case that his deposit amount with opposite parties was Rs. 30,518/-. Admittedly, from 17.01.1997 onwards the said matured amount of Rs. 37,407/- was with opposite party till 26.07.2007, the date of withdrawal of the said amount by Divisional Forest Officer. During the said period, though the said amount was with opposite party, the same cannot be treated as reinvestment of the matured amount unless the same renewed by the Depositor or by the pledgee. Opposite party already submitted in the version that as per existing guidelines of the bank/RBI no interest is allowed on a deposit after due date except in case of a renewal. No material furnished by the complainant to prove otherwise. In view of the matter, there is nothing to attribute deficiency on the part of opposite party. Complainant has not established his case which deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both parties shall bear and suffer their costs.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30^th day of October 2009.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

President.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 08/2008

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

NIL

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Photocopy of original order dated 18.01.1994

P2 - Photocopy of acknowledgement issued by the bank.

P3 - Photocopy of letter dated 17.01.1997 issued to the

complainant.

P4 - Photocopy of statement showing the payment.

P4(a) - Photocopy of application dated 13.03.2004

P5 - Copy of letter dated 08.06.2007

P5(a) - Copy of postal receipts.

P6 - Photocopy of letter dated 05.01.2007 addressed to opposite

party by the complainant.

P7 - Copy of reply letter dated 16.07.2007

P8 - Photocopy of out patient record dated 18.05.2007

P9 - Photocopy of out patient record dated 10.02.2009

P10 - Photocopy of operation notes dated 30.11.2001

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT