BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.45 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM ELURU AT W.GODAVARI
Between
The Andhra Bank
rep. by its Senior Branch Manager,
Narsapur Branch, Narsapur
W.G.District
Appellant/opposite party
A N D
1. Settaluri Seshavalli Thayaru
W/o Sri Rajagopal, aged 68 yrs
Occ: Housewife, R/o Steemer Rd.,
D.No.5-2-15/1, Narsapur
Narsapur Mandal, W.G.District
2. Settaluri Vyjanthimala
W/o late Badrinarayana
Aged about 42 yrs, occ: Housewife
R/o Steemer Rd., D.No.5-2-15/1
Narsapur, Narsapur Mandal, W.G.Dist.
Respondents/complainants
Counsel for the Appellant Sri Ch.Siva Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents Sri Sriram Krishna Moorthy
QUORUM:
SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
FRIDAY THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. The opposite party bank is the appellant. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondents no.1 and 2 awarding an amount of `20,000/- with interest @7% p.a. together with a sum of `1,000/- towards compensation and costs of `1,000/-.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondents deposited an amount of `20,000/- with the appellant on 8th May,2003 and acknowledging the amount the Appellant issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number 22/ 2003/0005 with its serial number 0421443.The respondents deposited sum of `20,000/- on 28th October,2000 under Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number 2000/242 . The serial number of the receipt is 797469. The appellant issued Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number 2000/242 with the serial number 0587813 with maturity date 28th October,2003 in favour of its another customer. At the time of computerization of the accounts of the subscribers of the appellant bank, the same Fixed Deposit Receipt number i.e., 2000/242 was accidentally allotted to the appellants and the other account holder of the appellant bank. The other customer of the appellant bank presented his Fixed Deposit Receipt for payment of the amount on maturity on 7th May,2001. The appellant bank had cancelled the Fixed Deposit Receipt of the respondents as their Fixed Deposit Receipt also bears the same number i.e., 2000/242. Subsequently, on 15th May,2002 when the respondents enquired about their quarterly interest, the appellant bank realizing the accidental slip, revived the Fixed Deposit Receipt of the respondents with effect from the date of its issue and the appellant bank had issued computer generated Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number FDR/1/20000098 with serial number 0422288 without the respondents returning the original Fixed Deposit Receipt . The appellant credited interest of `2,000/- to the savings bank account bearing number 999143 of the respondents on the same day.
3. On 29th October,2003, the respondents presented both the Fixed Deposit Receipts, that were issued for the same transaction and they had withdrawn an amount of `5,000/- from their savings bank account seeking for renewal of the Fixed Deposit Receipt for a sum of `45,000/-. The official of the appellant bank preclosed the other Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number FDR/22/20030005 in order to issue the Fixed Deposit Receipt for `45,000/- The respondents got issued notice dated 27th January,2007 for which a reply was issued by the appellant on 26th February,2007 and prior to the date of notice and reply thereto, the appellant addressed letter on 15th June,2006 narrating the facts relating to the mistake that crept in the matter of the Fixed Deposit Receipt in question. Ultimately, the respondents approached the District Forum by filing the complaint which is the genesis of the present appeal.
4. The first respondent no.1 has filed her affidavit .ExA1 to A3 had been marked on the side of the respondents. Manager of the appellant bank has filed his affidavit and got marked the documents ExB1 to B15.
5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order suffers from misappreciation of fact or law?
6. There is no dispute of the deposit amount of `20,000/- made by the respondents with the appellant bank on 28th October,2000 and `20,000/- on 8th May,2003 with the appellant bank. The amount of `20,000/- deposited on 8th May,2003 or the Fixed Deposit Receipt issued therefor is not in dispute. The appellant through its letter dated 15.06.206 informed the respondents that one of its subscribers namely V.Maheshwer Rao deposited an amount of `20,000/- on 16th October,2000 and the appellant had by mistake issued two Fixed Deposit Receipts bearing number 2000/242 in favour of the respondents and M.V.Maheswer Rao and on computerization of the accounts, the appellant allotted FDR No.2000/245 to M.V.Maheshwer Rao and FDR No.2000/242 to the respondents. It is mentioned in the letter that on 7th May,2001 M.V.Maheshwer Rao opted for withdrawal of his deposit and at that time inadvertently the FDR No. 2000/242 was cancelled and on 15th May,2002 the appellant noticed the mistake. In the counter, it was stated that on enquiry made by the respondents about payment of the quarterly interest was noticed by the appellant. The letter goes to show that immediately noticing the mistake crept in cancellation of the respondent’s Fixed Deposit Receipt, the appellant had taken damage control steps by adjusting the proceeds of `20,000/- lying to the credit of the account of M.V.Maheshwer Rao to the credit of another Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing no.FDR/1/20000098 with serial number 0422288 and issued it to the respondents
7. The respondents sought to deposit an amount of `45,000/- on 29th October,2003 with the appellant bank. The appellant states that the respondents with an oblique motive presented the two Fixed Deposit Receipts and as such the Staff of the appellant bank preclsoed the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number FDR/22/20030005 dated 8th May,2003 for Rs.20,000/- in order to issue the FDR for `45,000/-. The appellant attributes oblique motive to the respondents who approached the appellant bank to deposit the amount despite cancellation of their deposit which they could know only on an enquiry for debit of the quarterly interest on their earlier deposit. The negligence of the appellant bank has been attempted to be scaled down by an attempt to transfer its magnitude on to the respondents highlighting their request for deposit of the amount covered under two deposit receipts issued for a single transaction. The negligence of the appellant bank is so grave that the appellant bank had forgotten the fact that the respondents are two ladies and they had not done anything on their own by being victimized by the ordeal at the hands of the appellant bank.
8. The appellant attempted to regret for not having requested the respondents for cancellation of the Fixed Deposit Receipt bearing number 20030005 . In paragraph 5 of the counter it was pleaded that “Even though the system generated a new F.D.Receipt, the branch should not have delivered the new F.D. receipt bearing no.FDR/1/20000098(printed sl.no.0422288) to the complainants under the good faith and impression that the complainants return back the cancelled fixed deposit receipt”. In the reply notice dated 11th September,2006 it was stated that” Even though system generated a new FD Receipt, we should not have delivered the same to the depositor without their returning the original FD bearing no.2000/242.(printed Sl.No.797469). However, we delivered the new FD Receipt bearing No.FD/01/200220098(printed Sl.No. 0422268) to the depositor.
9. The respondents would not have submitted the two deposit receipts had they entertained an oblique motive. In the reply notice, it was stated as under”
“On 29-10-2003, depositor has presented both the original (manual) and computer gerenerated FDs for renewal for as amount of Rs.45,000/- along with an amount of Rs.5,000/- to be drawn from the SB Account. Though the depositor presented two FD Receipts in fact, only one FD was available with the branch since the depositor deposited an amount of Rs.20,000only once on28-10-2000. Here we should have explained the facts and convinced the depositor about the mistake occurred on 15-05-2002. Instead we have committed another mistake of one closing an existing deposit of Rs.20,000/-dated 8-05-2003 for a period of 3 years due on 08-05-2006…… In this case also by mistake we have not obtained the letter for cancellation of the above deposit nor taken back the original FD from the depositor”.
10. Thus, to cover its lapse on the first occasion the appellant had issued a computer generated Fixed Deposit Receipt in favour of the respondents. However, the respondents did not know that the more glaring act was in the offing and manifest by the act of the appellant bank which would deprive them the amount covered under the fixed deposit receipt whose due date is about 3 years thereafter and it was beyond the imagination of any customer’s perception to have been victimized by her banker where by her Deposit Account was cancelled without seeking production of the FDR or any cancellation letter thereof. The act of the bank at the first instance in issuing the FDR bearing number FD/1/20000098 without insisting on the production of the FDR bearing number 20000242 in the process of rectifying its mistake in canceling the FDR bearing number 200000242 of the respondents, can be understood though the respondents suffered mental tension as the quarterly interest was not credited to their savings bank account.
11. The conduct of the bank in canceling behind the back of the respondents the other FDR totally unconnected with the FDRs issued earlier is vicious and it exhibits the attitude of the bank in derogation of the banking standards towards its customers,. Even if the customer intentionally presented two FDRs of the same transaction or seek for the issuing of fresh FDR without depositing the required amount, it is the duty of the bank to inform the customer about the cash available and seek his permission to cancel the FDR where the customer is unable to deposit the amount for the face value of which the issue of the FDR is sought for. The Bank ought to have kept in mind its attitude and its nefarious act before attributing malafide intention to the respondents. We do not have any hesitation in upholding the finding of the District Forum under point no.2 of the impugned order,” In the present case the deficiency in service is manifest in the unilateral closure of FD without any notice to the complainants which is amply proved”. However, the compensation awarded of `20,000/- against the relief sought for, `15,000/- is on the higher side though the District Forum has concluded that the award of `20,000/- is commensurate with the mental tension the respondent suffered due to the unilateral cancellation of the Fixed Deposit Receipt. Accordingly, we reduce the amount from `20,000/- to `10,000/- and maintain the rest of the order.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order dated 29th September,2007 of the District Forum by reducing the amount awarded on the count of compensation from `20,000/- to `10,000/-.The rest of the order is upheld.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt.29.10.2010
KMK*
