Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/275/2019

1.Chairman and CEO Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch, Chennai.And 4 Others - Complainant(s)

Versus

M.Mohan S/o Marimuthu, No.30, Thendral Nagar, New Town, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District. - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Rajendran Raghavan

27 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :     Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                            PRESIDENT

                   Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                          MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.275/2019

(Against order in CC.NO.4/2017 on the file of the DCDRC, Vellore)

 

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF JANUARY 2023

 

1.       Chairman and CEO

          Indian Bank, Royapettah Branch

          Chennai

 

2.       The Zonal Manager

          Indian Bank, Vellore

 

3.       The Branch Manager

          Indian Bank, Patchur,  Vellore

 

4.       The Branch Manager

          Indian Bank

          Pochampalli, Krishnagiri District

                                                                                M/s. Rajendra Raghavan

5.       The Zonal Manager                                                    Counsel for

          Indian Bank, Dharmapuri                                  Appellants / Opposite Parties

 

                                                         Vs.

M. Mohan

S/o. Marimuthu                                                               Party in person

No.30, Thendral Nagar                                                    (M/s.K.Kumaran

New Town, Vaniyambadi                                                  Amicus  Curiae)

Vellore District                                                           Respondent / Complainant

 

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.14.5.2019 in CC.No.4/2019.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for appellant and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT      (Open court)

1.        This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties as against the order dt.14.5.2019 passed by the District Commission, Vellore, in CC.No.4/2017 by allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent/complainant herein. 

 

2.       For the sake of convenience parties are referred as per ranking before the District Commission.

 

 3.      The brief facts of the complaint before the District Commission are as follows:

          The complainant is a retired Manager of Indian Bank.  He retired from the service on 31.5.2014 from Indian Bank, Gudiyatham Branch, which is under the control of Vellore Zonal Office.  While he was in service, he availed a loan by pledging NSC certificates under loan account No.769779592.  The said loan amount was recovered in instalment from his salary upto May 2014.  After his retirement the complainant closed the outstanding in the loan account from his retirement benefits at Pochampalli Branch, where his account was maintained.  After closing the loan account, the complainant requested the Pochampalli branch to return the NSC certificates.  In this regard, he sent various letters on 23.9.2014, 18.3.2014, 19.7.2014 and 12.8.2015.  But there was no response from the said Branch.  Therefore he approached the Indian Bank, Dharmapuri Branch on 22.4.2015, 12.5.2015, 27.5.2015, 14.10.2015, 1.6.2016 and on 26.7.2016 with a request to handover the NSC certificates.  But there was no proper response from the opposite party.   Finally he had written a letter to the Managing Director and CEO and to the Vigilance Officer on 10.1.2015 and 20.10.2016, but no action was taken.  Finally he requested the PIO of the Indian Bank under Right to Information Act, about the fate of the NSC.  For which the complainant had received a reply stating that no such documents are available at Pachur Branch.  Hence the complainant approached the Pachur Branch regarding that, but there was no proper response.  He also complained about the misbehaviour of the Zonal Manager.  Thereafter, he sent various letters, but nothing evoked response.  Therefore, he has come forward with the present complaint praying for a direction to the opposite parties to release the original or duplicate documents, or to pay the maturity value of the certificate alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 

           

4.       The case of the complainant was resisted by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties are as follows:

           The allegation of the complainant that he requested the Pachur branch regarding the NSC, but no reply was given, and again he approached the PIO are all false.  Similarly, it is not correct to state that the Branch Manager had abused him.  The complainant is a retired Manager of the Indian Bank, and he is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant had not stated that in which branch he had deposited the NSC.  The complainant can very well obtain the duplicate certificate and encash the same.  There is no deficiency of service on their part. 

 

5.       In order to prove the complaint, proof affidavit was filed by the complainant, alongwith the documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A25 on the side of the complainant.  But no document was filed on the side of the opposite parties. 

 

6.       The District Commission, after analysing the entire evidence, had come to the conclusion that even after a period of five years, the complainant could not obtain the National Savings Certificates, which were handed over to the opposite parties.  Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and thus allowed the complaint, by directing the opposite parties to return the original NSC or Duplicate NSC within a period of one month and to pay 12% interest on the matured value from 26.3.2016 till realisation.  If the opposite parties are not in a position to return the NSC, they are directed to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,60,000/- alongwith interest @12% from 26.3.2016 till realisation, apart from paying a sum of Rs.30000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-.   

 

7.       Heard the submissions of learned counsel for Appellant and the learned amicus curiae for Respondent.  

 

8.       The learned counsel for appellant submitted that since the Respondent/ complainant was an officer of Indian Bank, normally the pledged shares would be entrusted to the officer on transfer to be handedover to the subsequent branch.  In this regard, there seems to be a gap in the communication as regards to the particulars of pledged documents and encashment of the same.  In the meantime, when the matter about the missing of the share certificates were brought to the notice, the appellants/opposite parties requested the Respondent/ complainant to furnish the details and also give necessary application for obtaining the copy of the NSC.  The appellants had categorically assured many times orally assuring that they would pay the necessary charges and costs for obtaining the copy from the post office concerned and follow up for the encashment of the same.  Even during the pendency of consumer complaint, the appellants sent a communication dt.12.3.2019 about the assistance that would be provided for the Respondent/ complainant and requested to sort out the issue amicably.  Inspite of receiving the said communication on 14.3.2019, the Respondent/ complainant was not showing any bonafides for amicable solution and proper remedy for obtaining the certificate.  Therefore, there are only minor latches on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus prayed for allowing the appeal.

 

9.       Per contra, the learned amicus curiae for Respondent would submit that though the complainant had closed his loan account on 23.7.2014 itself, the pledged documents viz. the NSC certificates were not handed over to the complainant.   After a long battle by issuing series of letters and approaching the opposite parties in person and after issuing complaints to the RBI, Banking Ombudsman and the Vigilence department etc., and after filing the consumer complaint, then only the opposite parties revealed the fact that the documents are not available.  Therefore, there is a clear negligence on the part of the opposite parties, and thus the order passed by the District Commission to be upheld. 

10.     Having considered the submissions, we have carefully gone through the materials available on record.

 

11.     The only submission of the appellant/ opposite parties is that they are ready and willing to help the complainant to obtain the NSC certificates.  But we are of the considered opinion that the complainant had been struggling for getting the hypothecated certificates back after clearing the loan amount.  But the appellants/ opposite parties without disclosing the fact to the complainant that they could not trace out the certificates, had made him to run from pillar to post, and after filing the consumer complaint only, the appellants/ opposite parties had revealed the truth they could not trace out the NSCs entrusted by the complainant while obtaining loan, and they are willing to issue indemnity for obtaining the duplicate one. 

          In our considered opinion, due to the fault of the opposite parties, the complainant was being made to suffer till date.  If the opposite parties had disclosed the fact about the non-traceability of the certificates, and issued indemnity at the time of closure of account itself, there would be some justification in the act of the opposite parties.  Therefore, we feel that the complainant need not be made to wait further.   Accordingly, finding no merit in the appeal, we hereby concur with the findings of the District Commission.

 

12.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission,  Vellore, in CC.No.4/2017  dt.14.5.2019.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

  R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                                     R. SUBBIAH

                      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT