L.SIVA REDDY V/S STATE BANK OF INDIA - Consumer Court Case

Andhra Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/1597/07

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

L.SIVA REDDY - Opp.Party(s)

MR. A.SATYANARAYANA

06 Apr 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. FA/1597/07

(Arisen out of Order Dated null in Case No. of District Krishna at Vijaywada)

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA

CHIEF MANAGER GANDHNAGAR VIJAYAWADA

BEFORE:

PRESENT:

ORDER

BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD

(CIRCUIT BENCH AT VIJAYAWADA)

F.A.No.1597/2007 against C.C.No.145/2006, Dist.Forum,Krishna at Vijayawada. .

Between:

State Bank of India, Gandhinagar,

Vijayawada-3, rep. by its Chief Manager. …Appellant/

Opp.party

And

Lokireddy Siva Reddy ,

Son of Appi Reddy,

D.No.43-83-20, Daba Kotal Road End,

Ajith Singh Nagar Vijayawada-15. … Respondent/

Complainant

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. A.Satyanarayana

Counsel for the Respondent : --

CORAM:SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

And

SRI. K.SATYANAND , HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF APRIL.

TWO THOUSAND TEN.

Oral Order :(Per Smt. M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)

****

Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.145/2006 on the file of District Forum, Krishna at Vijayawada , the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant had opened a recurring deposit account under Super Savings Scheme no.SSD 12 on 15.6.1984 in the opposite party bank and according to the said scheme the complainant has to deposit an amount of Rs.100/- per month for a period of 22 years and after the completion of the scheme he would be entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.1,09,839/-. The complainant had paid 80% of the scheme amount in instalments and due to ill health he could not pay some of the instalments. Opposite party paid only Rs.47,766/- out of the total maturity amount stating that the transaction is an old one and that the registers and passwords of the computer of that particular period are not available and hence they calculated the amount basing on the pass book entries furnished by the complainant. The complainant further submits that that the concerned clerk answered in a reckless manner. Hence the complaint.

The opposite party filed version stating that under Super Savings Scheme in which the complainant joined the opposite party had to open three R.D.accounts according to which the first two account are for a period of 10 years each commencing from 15.6.1984 to 15.6.1994 and from 16.5.94 to 15.6.2004 and the third account being from 15.6.2004 to 15.6.2006 i.e. till the end of the scheme. The maturity value of the first R.D.Account was to be reinvested for the next ten years as STDR and the proceeds there of were to be reinvested in STDR for two years i.e. till the end of the scheme. Opposite party submits that the complainant would be entitled to the maturity amount of Rs.1,09,839/- by the end of the scheme i.e. 15.6.2006 if he deposits an amount of Rs.100/- per month without any default. The opposite party submits that the complainant should communicate his option for reinvesting the maturity proceeds of R.D.Account in STDR and the complainant had paid only 11,600/- in 28 instalments as against 120 months and he never adhered to the terms of the scheme and hence the assured interest under the scheme had not been accrued for further period. Opposite party further submits that the complainant had deposited Rs.8,200/- in 8 instalments in a span of 9 years after 1990. and as against the total deposit of Rs.19,800/- the bank paid Rs.47,766/- to the complainant on 13.9.2006 and the complainant is not entitled to the amount as claimed by him. Opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek dismissal of the complaint

Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B3 allowed the compliant in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs.40,105/- only to the complainant, Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of the complaint and also directed the opposite party to collect the costs amount of Rs.1000/- from the erring employee who is responsible for the same.

Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite party preferred this appeal.

The facts not in dispute are that the complainant opened Super Savings Scheme account on 15.6.1984 for a period of 22 years on monthly deposit of Rs.100/-. As per the said scheme the opposigte party bank had to open three R.D. accounts in the complainant’s name the first being for a period of 10 years commencing from 15.6.1984 ending on 15.6.1994 with monthly deposit of Rs.100/-, the second R.D. account was for a period of 10 years from 16.5.1994 to 15.6.2004 with monthly deposit of Rs.100/- and the third R.D. account was for two years from 15.6.2004 to 15.6.2006 i.e. till the end of Super Savings Scheme. The maturity value of the first R.D. account was invested for 10 years as S.T.D.R. and the proceeds should be reinvested in S.T.D.R. for two years till the end of Super Savings Scheme. If the scheme is continued without any default at any stage the complainant would get an amount of Rs.1,09,839/- by the end of the scheme i.e. 15.6.2006. It is the case of the complainant that he deposited 80% amount in instalments and due to ill health he could not pay some instalments and the opposite paid only Rs.47,766/- out of the total maturity amount of Rs.1,09,839/-. When the complainant questioned the opposite party he was informed that the registers and details in computers were not available since it is an old account and they calculated the amount based on the pass book entries of the complainant. It is the case of the opposite party that the complainant paid only Rs.11,600/- in 28 instalments as against 120 months at Rs.100/- and he never adhered to the terms of the scheme at the beginning and the assured interest and maturity proceeds have not accrued even by the end of the first cycle of 10 years and as per the rules the account has to be closed and the same would be paid with interest at savings bank interest i.e. 5% per annum. It is the further case of the opposite party that the complainant deposited Rs.8,200/- in 8 instalments in a span of 9 years after 1990 and deny that the complainant paid more amount and contend that the payment of Rs.47,766/- to the complainant on 13.9.2006 is correct and his claim for the amount of Rs.1,00,839/- is untenable. We observe from the exhibits filed by the opposite party that no notice was issued to the complainant stating that there was any default in payment of the instalments or calling upon the complainant to take refund of the amounts and settle his account. We also observe from the record that the opposite party did not file records or ledgers and it is their contention that it is an old case and that the records are not available. Admittedly the scheme is for 22 years and it commenced on 15.6.1984 and ended on 15.6.2006. When this is the period of the scheme, it is the duty of the opposite party to have kept the details of payment. The contention of the opposite party that the amount of Rs.47,766/- paid to the complainant is justifiable, is also not supported by any documentary evidence or statement of account. The calculation as to how they have arrived at this figure has not been placed before the Forum or this Commission. Therefore we see no reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.