Complaint filed on: 28.05.2014

                                                     Disposed on: 28.09.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.935/2014

DATED THIS THE 28^th SEPTEMBER OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Smt.Sudha.K

House no.18,

Corner, 2^nd cross,

Shamanna Gowda

Layout, Jogpalya,

Halasuru,

Bengaluru-18

By Advocates

M/s.Somanna Associates

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

1. The Manager,

Canara Bank,

No.22, SLV Complex,

80 feet road,

HAL 2^nd stage,

Thippasandra Main Road

Bengaluru-75.

By Adv.Sri.Prashant T Pandit

2. Lathish,

No.24/1, 3^rd cross,

Charles Campbell Road,

Near Railway Cox Town, Bengaluru-05

• Ex-parte

3. K.Savithri,

No.10, 16^th cross,

Temple Road,

Malleshwaram,

Bengaluru-3

• Ex-parte

4. The Manager,

Karnataka State financial Corporation,

Rajajinagar, No.197,

II stage, West of Chord Road, Bengaluru-86.

By Adv.Sri.Rajesh Shetty

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has sought for direction against the Opposite party no.1/Canara Bank, Thipsandra branch, Bengaluru for making payment of Rs.39,000/- with interest for not furnishing the copies of FD receipt, notes by the Opposite party bank and later has impleaded the Opposite parties no.2 & 3/officers and Opposite party no.4/KSFC expressing her grievance against them also.

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that in 1996, she had deposited Rs.39,000/- in the form of FD with the Opposite party no.1/bank and had deposited the said FD receipt in 1997 with Opposite party no.4/KSFC to get the Auto Rickshaw loan.  After discharging the auto rickshaw loan, she fell ill and became unable to visit the bank/Opposite party no.1 or the KSFC/Opposite party no.4. In February 2012 on enquiry, she learnt that the KSFC has already sent the security documents to her address long back. Such enquiry with the bank revealed the transaction carried out by others in her account. The money in her account has been taken by bank officials. She has not done any transaction in the bank. Hence she requires the direction against the bank/Opposite party no.1 for furnishing of the FD account number, copy of the receipt with FD amount.

          3. The Opposite parties no.2 & 3 are placed ex-parte. The Opposite party no.1 & 4 filed their versions separately. The Opposite party no.1/bank has contended that this incomplete and misleading complaint, without giving the details of alleged FD and FD amount, on the ground that all the details were lost by her, becomes unjustified allegations made absolutely with malafide intention. Such attempts made by her amounts to gross abuse of social welfare legislation. The complaint is frivolous and vexatious.  This process cannot be misused to compel the bank to trace the alleged FD details because of the lapses committed by the Complainant.

          3a. The Opposite party no.4/KSFC also had denied the allegations contending that the Complainant who is not at all the consumer, has no right to file this complaint against the corporation as her claim is hopelessly barred by law of limitation, after they returned the original FD no.71638 for Rs.14,000/- to the Complainant on 25.05.2000, after she closed her loan account. It was also informed in response to her letter dtd.31.12.13 even by writing a letter dtd.25.02.14 to Canara bank, Indiranagar branch, informing that the KSFC has no objection to return the FD receipt. The complaint becomes liable to be dismissed.  

          4. The Complainant and the Opposite parties no.1 & 4 filed their respective affidavit evidences. The Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A11 documents and the Opposite party no.4 has relied on Ex-B1 to B3 documents. Written arguments were filed by the contesting parties. Arguments were heard.       

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the complaint is not maintainable ?
2. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service in not furnishing the copies of FD receipt, notes by the Opposite party no.1/bank  ?         
3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Affirmative

2) Negative

3) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2: The Complainant/ Smt.Sudha has stated about the alleged FD amount kept in the Opposite party no.1 bank in 1996. She has not produced any supporting documents to show what was the deposited amount, what was the period of the deposit and nature of the FD. Admittedly the FD receipt was deposited as security document to avail auto rickshaw loan from Opposite party no.4/KSFC.  The Opposite party no.4 has produced the entire file relating to her loan transaction through memo dtd.10.07.15, submitting that her auto rickshaw loan was closed long back in the year 2000, even by way of returning all her security documents on 25.05.2000. In response to the letter from office of the Chief Minister in January 2014, the KSFC reported the same informing that the Complainant herself personally has taken all the security documents from their office by putting her signature. The copy of the extract at sl.no.167 dtd.25.05.2000, established the same with the further information that it was towards KA-04-1482. The Opposite party no.4 had written the letter to Canara bank, HAL 2^nd stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru, requesting to provide the details of FD, may be relating to the period 1995 to 2002, towards the granting of the loan and the said letter dtd.12.07.12 was sent by deputing the official Sri.Rajanna to get the information immediately. The legal service authority held the Lok Adalath in 2012 by getting Opposite parties no.2 to 4. The entire file of the Opposite party no.4 running of hundred of sheets, the copy or the particulars details of the alleged FD receipt taken as security document.

          8. When the Opposite party no.4 became unable to collect the particulars of the FD receipt, sending the officials in person to HAL branch of the Canara bank, how the Opposite party no.1 of MSL 2^nd stage, Thipsandra is mentioned as the party in this case is not explained.

          9. There is no mentioning about the allegations against Opposite parties no.2 & 3 as to how they are involved in this dispute, regarding the alleged FD receipt. Thereby there is no cause of action against the Opposite parties no.2 & 3. The Opposite party no.4 after closing of the loan account in 2000 has lost its role in connection with the alleged FD receipt. Thereby all the four Opposite parties have no role about the FD receipt. The Complainant’s loan account closed in 2000 makes this complaint against the said Opposite parties, hopelessly barred by limitation.

          10. The Complainant has failed to establish that she had the FD account with the Opposite party no.1 branch. It is not her case directly, she has stated that the FD is for Rs.39,000/- and it is stated for Rs.14,000/- by the Opposite party no.4 and the fate of the enquiry by the Opposite party no.4 has not come out about the existence of the FD receipt.  Why HAL branch of the Canara bank is mentioned in correspondence letters relating to the FD receipt and why the said branch is not impleaded are also not explained. Hence the entire complaint becomes absurd, vague and about inconsistent incidents and thereby becomes not maintainable and thereby the Complainant has failed to establish the relationship as alleged FD holder with the Opposite party no.1 bank and also failed to establish the particulars of the receipt and thereby she has not made out the case against the Opposite parties.

11. She has produced the copy of ration card/Ex-A1. Ex-A2 to A5 and A9 relating to her auto rickshaw loan transaction with the Opposite party no.4. Ex-A7 notice of legal service authority and none of these documents help her to prove the consumer and service provider relationship and the deficiency in service against the Opposite party no.1.

12. Through Ex-A6 and A8/letters she has requested to Canara bank, no.22, first floor, 80 feet road, HAL 3^rd stage seeking the amount of the FD and the particulars and the said bank is not the party in this case. In Ex-A6 she has stated that in 1997 itself, the FD amount was Rs.39,000/- which accordingly to the KSFC Rs.14,000/- and thereby itself the existence of the FD receipt, FD with the Opposite party no.1 becomes is unreliable.

13. There is no need for her approach the entire world other than the concerned branch to establish the said relationship of customer/consumer and service provider. Hence number of documents produced by her are also of no use to make out the case against the Opposite parties no.1 to 4.

14. In the result both the Consumer Disputes no.1 & 2 goes against her. Accordingly the Consumer Dispute no.1 is answered in the affirmative and the Consumer Dispute no.2 is answered in the negative.  

15. Consumer Dispute No.3: In view of finding of the Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2, the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The CC.No.935/2014 filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 28^th September of 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant/s:

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of                               Opposite party no.4