BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE

                                                                Dated this the 30^th OCTOBER 2015

PRESENT

        SMT. ASHA SHETTY           :  HON’BLE  PRESIDENT       

        SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI        :   HON’BLE MEMBER                                         

COMMON ORDER IN

C.C.Nos.  408/2014 AND 409/2014

BETWEEN:

CC No. 408/2014

(Admitted on 29.10.2014)

Miss Jyothi Prabhu A.

D/o A.D. Prabhu,

Aged about 58 years,

R/at. 1-718, Urlandy,

Puttur.D.K.                                                 …….. COMPLAINANT

CC No. 409/2014

(Admitted on 29.10.2014)

Miss Jyothi Prabhu A.

D/o A.D. Prabhu,

Aged about 58 years,

R/at. 1-718, Urlandy,

Puttur.D.K.                                                 …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Sanjaya D)           (CC No. 408/14)

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. Sanjaya D)           (CC No. 409/14)

VERSUS

The Manager,

CANARA Bank,

Krishnaprasad Building

Main Road, Puttur.D.K.                        ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate for the opposite party : Sri. M.P. Ramnath) (CC No. 408/14)

(Advocate for the opposite party : Sri. M.P. Ramnath) (CC No. 409/14)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SMT. ASHA SHETTY:

I.       1. The above complaints are filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the common Opposite Parties claiming similar reliefs. In order to save the time as well as for the sake of convenience, we have taken up all the cases together and passed common order as under:-

The brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainants has deposited certain sum of money with the Opposite Party bank for a particular period. The details of the amounts deposited with the Opposite Party bank mentioned in detail herein below:-

Complainants stated that, she has deposited certain some of money under the FD with the opposite party, when the matter stood thus she has presented the application on 16.9.2014 to encash the amount as premature withdrawal and to deposit in S.B. account pertaining to the complaint.   The opposite party has rejected the application and refused to encash the amount, stating that, O.A. No. 1097/2012 is pending before the DRT court Bangalore.

The complainant stated that, she is not a party to the proceedings nor she is no way connected to Dhruva enterprises Puttur and pendency before the DRT court has no bearing on this fixed deposit amount.  The complainant further stated that, the recovery suit for money has filed against complainant’s brother and not against this complainant. Hence the opposite party has no right whatsoever to refuse the encashment of above FD. Nonpayment of the above said FD till this date amounts to deficiency in service.  Hence the above complaints are filed before this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Forum to the Opposite Party to pay the entire Deposited amount invested by them respectively mentioned in their complaints and also sought for compensation and cost of the proceedings.

II.      1.  Version notice served to the Opposite Party by R.P.A.D. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel filed version.  In all the complaints the opposite party bank filed similar Version the opposite party stated that, the opposite party bank has initiated recovery proceedings against one Miss Dhruva enterprises and its partners before the debt recovery tribunal DRT Bangalore under O.A. No.1097/2012. It is stated that, on receiving the relying the information the fixed deposit receipts detailed in complaint by filing an application attached before judgment in the above said proceedings.  It is stated that, the money in the said FD receipt is routed into the account of the complainant by her brother Mr. A Raghuveer Prabhu. That, the amount deposited in the FD belong to one Mr’s Raghuveer Prabhu.  It is stated that, during the pendency of the case before the DRT the complainant has ventured to encash the amount prematurely and the said amount is deposited in the name of complainant by her brother i.e. Raghuveer Prabhu.  It is stated that, in an attempt to avoid repayment of the debut Mr. Raghuveer Prabhu deposited in the name of the complainant to defraud the opposite party.  The subject matter of the complaint is subjudice and pending enquiry before the debut recovery tribunal at Bangalore and stated that, there is neither deficiency in service at this opposite party nor any unfair trade practice  and prayed for rejection of the complaint.

III.     1. In support of the above complaints, all the respective Complainants are examined as CW-1 and produced documents got marked under the ‘Ex.C’ series detailed in the annexure here below and one Mr. B.C. Ravichandra. Chief Manager (RW-1) of Opposite Party filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced three documents i.e. Doc.No.1 and 2 for the Opposite Party.

In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:-

1. Whether the complaints filed by complainants are maintainable?

2. Whether the Complainants proved that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

3. If so, whether the Complainants are entitled for the reliefs claimed?

4. What order?

           We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:-

             Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative.

                       Point No.(iii) & (iv): As per the final order.   

REASONS

IV. 1.  POINTS No. (i) to (iv):

The fact which are admitted is that, the complainant deposited curtain some of money with the opposite party bank as per Ex-C-1 to C-8, in CC No. 408/2014 and Ex C-1 to C-8, in CC No 409/2014.

 Now In the case before us, though the opposite party took a contention that, the alleged fixed deposit amount routed into the account of the complainant by her brother Mr. A Raghuveer Prabhu. i.e. partner of one M/s Dhruva enterprises partnership firm. Further contended that, the opposite party has filed proceedings before the DRT at Bangalore for recovery of money.   It is also contended that, the complainant is only a name lender to the FD receipts

  It is an obvious that the complainant has every right to file the consumer complaint against the opposite party Bank because  we may note that, the only issue which arise for our consideration in the above case are as to whether claim of the complaints falls within the purview of  deficiency in service and the opposite party liable for that?. The averments made by the opposite party is not justified because the complainant is not competent person to clear of the loan amount availed by the M/s Dhruva Enterprises and its partners.  Once the amount deposited by the customer to the bank the amount so deposited may come from any source to the FD receipt holders.  Once the amount has been deposited under the FD receipt is the absolute property FD holder irrespective of its origin.

In the instant case, it is proved beyond doubt that since the complainant deposited certain some of money under Fixed deposit receipts with opposite party bank is absolute property of complainant who is the FD holder. When that being so the complainant is entitled of the amount mentioned under the FD receipt. Apart from the above we also perused the material evidence available on record that the complainant  is not party to the proceedings nor the amount under the FD receipts are not the subject matter in dispute before DRT.   Therefore, the assurance given by the opposite party Bank under FD receipt must be strictly adhered because the origin of the money is least important.  In such situation, we hold that the opposite party bank committed deficiency of service by withholding the amount under the FD receipt and we are not agreeing with the stand taken by the opposite party bank.

 We are concerned with provisions for the deficiency in service determined under Consumer Protection Act.  By considering deficiency of service committed by the opposite party Bank is liable for the act done by them.  However, any some received under FD receipts used to be refunded if the demand is made by the FD holder.   The complainant has made demand to refund the FD amount in both the cases.  Opposite party failed to till the date amounts to deficiency in service.

 Further the opposite party contended that, there is impending attachment of the fixed deposit receipts by the debt recovery tribunal and the de-facto title of the complainant pertaining to money deposited in FD are questioned before the DRT.  This FORA vested with quasi-judicial powers.  While on the subject we are of the opinion that, the complainant is not a party to the proceedings nor the fixed deposit money is not the subject matter in dispute.  The suit is for recovery of money against one M/s Dhruva enterprises.   The subject matter involved in this complaint is under deficiency in service. And this FORA has vested with full power to dispose of the case.   However we are of the consider opinion that the pendency of the DRT at Bangalore is outside the preview of Consumer Fora and as such we refrain from making any comment. We therefore, confine ourselves only to the question as alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank and the claim of the complainant for consequential relief in regard to that.  Since the deficiency in service of opposite party Bank is proved, we do not find any jurisdictional error on material irregularity.  Therefore, the opposite party bank is hereby directed to pay the sum under the FD receipt i.e. total sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- along with 12% from the date of deposit till date of payment.    Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

In the present cases, interest considered by this Forum itself is compensation and therefore, no separate amount for compensation is awarded.

In the result, we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaints are allowed. The opposite party bank is hereby directed to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) in CC. No. 408/2014 and 409/14 along with @ 12% from the date of deposit till date of payment and also pay Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards the litigation expenses in both cases.  Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

The F.D.R. if any deposited by the Complainant be returned fourth with by substituting the certified.

The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties and therefore the file be consigned to record.

(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 30^st day of OCTOBER -2015.)

PRESIDENT                                      MEMBER

 (SMT. ASHA SHETTY)                     (SMT. LAVANYA M.RAI)

D.K. District Consumer Forum                      D.K. District Consumer Forum

     Mangalore.                                                 Mangalore.       

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainants:

CW-1 : Miss Jyothi Prabhu A.-                CC.No.408/2014.

CW-1 : Miss Jyothi Prabhu A. -               CC.No.409/2014.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

 In CC.No.408/2014:

Ex C1 to C8.

1.  11-06-2014-  Copies of the Fixed deposits.

2.  09-10-2014-  Copy of the letter addressed to Opposite party.

3.  09-10-2014-  Reply of the opposite party.

4.  09-10-2014-  Copy of the Cheque.

5.  13-10-2014-  copy of the memo issued by Syndicate Bank Market yard Branch Puttur.

6. 18-10-2014-   O/C of the regd lawyer’s notice.

7. 20-10-2014-   Postal acknowledgment of the opposite party.

8. 01-08-2007-   Copy of the Partnership deed.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

In CC.No. 409 /2014:

Ex C1 to C8.

1.  13-06-2014-  Copies of the Fixed deposits.

2.  16-09-2014-  Copy of the letter addressed to Opposite party.

3.  17-09-2014-  Reply of the opposite party.

4.  16-09-2014-  Copy of the Cheque.

5.  19-09-2014-  copy of the memo issued by Syndicate Bank Market yard Branch Puttur.

6. 19-09-2014-   O/C of the regd lawyer’s notice.

7. 20-10-2014-   Postal acknowledgment of the opposite party.

8. 01-08-2007-   Copy of the Partnership deed.

 Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

CW-1 : Mr. B.C. Ravichandra.-                CC.No.408/2014.

CW-1 : Mr. B.C. Ravichandra. -               CC.No.409/2014.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

 In CC.No.408/2014:

Ex R1  and R2.

1.                          Photostat copy of letter dated 16.09.2014 addressed by the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Puttur to the Branch Manager, corporation Bank, Main Branch, Puttur.

2.                          Photostat copy of letter dated 16.09.2014 bearing Ref No: OR.CONF:02/2014-15 addressed by the Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Puttur Branch.

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

 In CC.No.409/2014:

Ex R1   to R4.

1.                          Photostat copy of letter dated 16.09.2014 addressed by the Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Puttur to the Branch Manager, corporation Bank, Main Branch, Puttur.

2.                          Photostat copy of letter dated 16.09.2014 bearing Ref No: OR.CONF:02/2014-15 addressed by the Senior Manager, Corporation Bank, Puttur Branch.

3.                                Photostat copy covering letter dated 09.07.2015 addressed by Mr. V. Haridas Bhat, Advocate, Bangalore to Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office-R & L Section.

4.                          Photostat copy of the Order Sheet in O.A. No: 1097/2012.

Dated: 30.10.2015.                                 PRESIDENT