M/s. Syndicate Bank Main Branch V/S Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. Late Ratanalal Choudhari - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR 65/06

Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. Late Ratanalal Choudhari - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Syndicate Bank Main Branch - Opp.Party(s)

Mahaveerkumar

26 Mar 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR 65/06

Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. Late Ratanalal Choudhari						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
M/s. Syndicate Bank Main Branch The General Manager Syndicate Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

1. Mr. Gyanchand Choudhari S/o. Late Ratanalal Choudhari

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. M/s. Syndicate Bank Main Branch 2. The General Manager Syndicate Bank

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Mahaveerkumar

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

1. Sateesh V 2. Sateesh V

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gyanachand Choudhari against the two O.P. (1) Syndicate Bank Main Branch Raichur and (2) The General Manager Syndicate Bank Corporate Office, Bangalore for deficiency in service. Originally this complaint was dismissed by this Forum In the Appeal No. 22/08 the order of this Forum was set-aside and the matter remitted back to this Forum for fresh disposal after due notice to both the parties. After the remand of the case, on 25-09-08 notice of remand was issued be both the parties. In pursuance of the same, both the parties appeared through counsel on 04-11-08. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant used to invest money in Fixed deposits with Respondent NO-1 Bank in his name or in the names of his family members and had been regularly dealing with all his bank transactions with Respondent. He had invested Rs. 30,000/- in his name and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai W/o. Late Ratanlal as detailed below: Sl.No. SSD.No. FDR.No. Name Amount 1. 681 129597 Smt. Soshar Bai Rs. 20,000=00 2. 682 129598 Gyanchand Choudhary Rs. 30,000=00 The said FDRs were to mature in 1985. In the meantime the complainant and his mother were in need of money to meet out their legal necessities as such they obtained loan on the above said FDs along with their other FDs Receipts by surrendering the original FD Receipts with the Respondent No-1 Bank. The complainant and his mother cleared the said loans, out of the proceeds of the said other FDs receipts and money from their pocket. Accordingly Respondent NO-1 has returned the above said two original FD Receipts to the complainant after their loan account was fully cleared. Thereafter the complainant took up construction of his house and in the said process the FDRs were mis-placed and thus forget it. In the meantime the complainant had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house the complainant traced the above said original FDRs he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Sashar Bai expired. He was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank and finally he wrote a letter on 22-09-03 and also made requests with Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the said FDRs immediately. But Respondent NO-1 have only asked the complainant to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office and corporate office from Bangalore. On 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the original to the Respondent NO-1. Accordingly the complainant sent the original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go to Puttaparthi for his health checkup in the night itself. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value on the contrary has illegally retained the same with it. All the repeated demands and reminders made to Respondents went in vain. The Respondent NO-2 has informed that Respondent No-1 has been informed to set right his grievance and he has been anxiously waiting for the word from Respondent but in vain. The failure of the Respondents to renew the said FDRs has amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. They are bound to follow the timely instructions of its customers and they cannot keep the instructions in isolation for such a long time. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to produce the loan accounts, extracts and all related documents and to renew the two FDRs together with upto date accrued interest and to pay the value of the renewed FDs and further direction to pay compensation of sum equal to the renewed value of FDRs on account of their deficiency in service. 3. The Respondent No-1 has filed his written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2. In the written version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is time barred. Further it is contended that on the two FDs the complainant and his mother has availed loan as per Loan Account No.LD 98/85 and LD 97/85 and accordingly the said original FD Receipts had been deposited with Respondent NO-1. The proceeds of the FDR No. 129597/681 and FDR No. 129596/682 have been adjusted on 09-10-1985 towards the loan account No.LD 98/85 and No.97/85 respectively. Hence the contention of the complainant that the said loan have been cleared from their pocket are all false and baseless. Further the contention of the complainant that Respondent NO-1 returned the said original FDs receipts to the complainant are all false and baseless. As the proceeds of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan accounts, there arise no question of returning to him. The complainant has created a false story with an ulterior motive of gaining unlawfully. At no point of time the complainant has produced the said FDRs as the proceeds of the same were adjusted to the loan accounts. It is specifically denied that on 14-02-04 the complainant was informed over phone to hand over the original FDRs and accordingly he sent the original with letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD etc., The Respondent NO-1 has not at all received the original FDRs as contended by the complainant. It is also strange to note that the complainant resides within walk-able distance from the bank and instead of approaching the bank personally he sent the POD etc., which cannot be believed. Hence there is no on the part the Respondent NO-1 Bank and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is a businessman and his conduct of keeping silence for abut (20) years is suspicious. The complainant is seeking the particulars of loan accounts pertaining to 1985 after lapse of (21) years and as the records are very old they have been destroyed as per rules. Therefore they are unable to produce the same. However the FDS, ledger extracts showing the details of adjustments made to the loan accounts regarding the proceeds of the said deposits are produced. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 4. During the course of trial in the first instance the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief and on 15-06-07 he again filed his sworn-affidavit as further chief-examination and got marked in all (18) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Senior Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1 and working Manager of Regional Office as RW-2 and have got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. During the course of argument in the first instance the L.C. for OP filed original FDRs Ledger Register containing entries of Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 with consent of both sides, the original FDR Register has been marked as Ex.R-3 and the entries of Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 on Page No. 78 & 79 have been marked as Ex.R-3(a) Ex.R-3(b) and the entries regarding other FDRs of the complainant and his mother on Page No. 51 of Ex.R-3 has been marked as Ex.R-3(c). 5. As stated supra after the remand of the case, in pursuance of the notice, both the parties appeared through their respective counsel on 01-12-08. The LC for complainant has filed additional affidavit-evidence of the complainant (after the remand) and produced (3) more documents namely: (1) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 1202, (2) Original Pass Book pertaining to Saving Account No. 4480 and (3) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 13761 and these documents have been got marked as Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21. The Respondents have not adduced any additional evidence after the remand of the case. 6. As seen above, the Honble State Commission in the Appeal Order on Page No-2 in the last Para it is observed as under:- No doubt there is a lapse on the part of the complainant in not moving the OP bank for renewal of the FD. But at the same time since there is no refusal to pay the amount till the demand made by the complainant, the claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause of action. Further, on Page No-3 in the last Para it is observed as under:- If the amount payable under the said two FD has been adjusted to discharge the loan there is no reason for the OP to refuse to renew the FD Receipt in-respect of FDRs bearing No. 681 & 682 or to pay matured amount. In this regard there is no proper consideration by the District Forum. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Hence the matter is remitted to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to both parties. Therefore the Honble State Commission has observed that there is no bar of limitation as it is a recurring cause of action and so the point of limitation needs no consideration. In this background and in the light of the dispute between the parties the following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 8. It is the case of the complainant that he being a regular customer of Respondent No-1 Bank had invested Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai and Rs. 30,000/- in his name under two FDRs bearing No. 125997 and 125998. The two FDRs were to mature in 1985. It is also his case that since he and his mother in need of money to meet their legal necessity, so they had obtained loan on the above said two FDRs along with their other FDRs by surrendering the original FDRs with Respondent No-1 Bank and subsequently they cleared the said loan out of the proceeds of their other FDRs and money from their pocket and accordingly after the loan account was fully cleared. Respondent No-1 Bank has returned the two original FDRs in this case. 9. The complainant has produced two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and correspondence made between him and Respondents at Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-18 and after the remand of the case the complainant has produced the original Pass Book pertaining to his Current Account No. 1202 at Ex.P-19 and two original Pass book pertaining to Savings Account No. 4480 at Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-20(1) and original Pass book pertaining to Saving Account No. 13761 at Ex.P-21. The Respondents Bank have produced Attested Photo copy of FDRs Ledger extract bearing Folio No. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and also produced FDR Ledger Register at Ex.R-3 with relevant Folio Nos. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-3(a) & Ex.R-3(b). But the Respondents have not produced any document after the remand of the case. 10. It is specific case that the complainant as averred in Para-6 & 7 that after they cleared the loan on the two FDRs out of the proceed of their other FDRs and money from their pocket the Respondent No-1 has returned the two original FDRs in this case. It is further case of the complainant that after he took up construction of his house and in that process he mis-placed the FDRs and in the meantime he had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and so he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house he traced the above said original FDRs and he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Smt. Soshar Bai expired. It is also the case of the complainant that he was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank for renewing his FDRs so he finally wrote a letter dt. 22-09-03 with a request to the Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the two FDRs but of no avail. Respondent NO-1 has only asked him to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office. Further, on 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the two original to Respondent NO-1. Accordingly he sent the two original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go in that night to Puttaparthi for his health checkup. The two FDRs have been duly acknowledged by Respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value but has illegally retained the same with them in-spite of all the repeated demands and reminders. This attitude of the Respondents amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. 11. The complainant has produced two original FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and his letters dt. 22-09-03 at Ex.P-3 to the Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office at Bangalore along with postal acknowledgements. He has also produced his another letter dt. 02-11-03 at Ex.P-6(1) addressed to Respondent No-1 Bank for renewal of the two FDRs with postal acknowledgement. He has also produced his another letter dr. 12-12-03 at Ex.P-7 addressed to Respondent No-1 by Courier Service with copies to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of two FDRs with Courier Delivery Service Note at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. He has also produced his another letter dt. 14-02-04 at Ex.P-11 addressed to Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore with Courier Consignment Note and Delivery Note at Ex.P-12(1) and Ex.P-12(2). Ex.P-13 is the letter dt. 25-02-04 issued by Respondent Regional Office at Bellary to the complainant stating that they have enquired the matter with their Raichur Main Branch and it was informed that the amount was adjusted to loan account. Ex.P-14 is the reminder letter of the complainant dt. 03-06-04 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Bangalore with request for renewal of the two Fdrs. Ex.P-14(1) to Ex.P-14(4) are the Courier Consignment Notes. Ex.P-15 is the letter of the Respondent Regional Office Bellary dt. 17-06-04 addressed to the complainant stating that the deposits have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to LD A/c. No. 97/85 and for any clarification approach the Branch Manager Raichur (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-16 is the letter of the complainant dt. 21-06-04 addressed to the General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of his two FDRs and despite of his several visits Raichur Branch Respondent No-1 is not in a position to furnish Statement of his Loan Account. Ex.P-17 is the Reply Letter of Respondent Corporate Office at Bangalore dt. 07-01-04 informing the complainant that his FDRs for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- have been closed and adjusted to the loans for which the FDRs were taken as security and he was asked to produce the same at Respondent No-1 Branch, Raichur in case he has got any documentary proof of having closed his loan account by cash payments, for verifying their records and redress his grievances and further advised the Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) to verify the records once again and to set right the things & redress his grievances in full. Ex.P-18 is the Registered Cover with affixed postal stamps & postal seal and affixture of Registered Receipts. 12. As seen from the correspondence made between the complainant and Respondent it shows that the complainant all the while since from 2003 onwards went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the same and the Respondent in their reply letters vide Ex.P-15 have intimated that the amount under FDRs have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to Current Account No. 97/85 and more particularly vide their reply letter at Ex.P-17 the Respondents have informed that the two FDRs have been closed & adjusted to the Loan Account for which the FDRs were taken as security. They have also informed the complainant to produce any documentary proof to their Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) in case he has closed his loan account by cash payments for verifying their records and redress his grievances and that delay in furnishing the details was due to the fact that the transactions relating to the year 1985 had to be searched and verified. 13. Admittedly the Respondents have not produced the two original FDRs showing that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. There is no dispute that the complainant had taken a loan, but according to the complainant he has closed his loan account by adjusting amount of other FDRs and by payment of cash and not by adjustment of the two FDRs in this case. If according to the Respondents the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account, then why they have not produced two FDRs showing endorsement in that regard on the two FDRs assumes importance. As stated supra the complainant has produced the two original FDRs which do not show any endorsement with seal and signature of the Respondents Bank for having adjusted the proceed of the two FDRs to his loan account. Of course the Respondents have produced Xerox copy of the Ledger Extract of the FDRs at Ex.R- 1 & Ex.R-2 and original of which produced at Ex.R-3. But how the two original FDRs have been returned to the complainant as contended by the complainant ?. OR how the complainant came in possession of the said two original FDRs is the main question in this case and no explanation is coming forth on behalf of Respondents in answer to the said question. Further the complainant has produced a Registered Post Cover at Ex.P-18 showing postage of this cover to his residential address with the seal of the Respondents Office at Bellary with affixture of postal stamps & postal seal thereon and affixture of Registered Receipts on the said cover. The Respondents have not stated either in the written statement or in the evidence contraverting the postage of Registered cover to the complainant or any evidence that any enquiry having been initiated as to how the two original FDRs have come in possession of the complainant. At the cost of repetition as stated supra the original two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 do not show/bear any endorsement of the Respondent Bank to the effect that the proceed of these FDRs having been adjusted to the loan account of complainant and thereby closing the FDRs. Even they do not bear any seal & signature of the Authority of the Respondent-Bank. Generally when the FDRs of any Bank are adjusted to the loan account, then there shall be an endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority in that regard and on closer/adjustment of the amount to the loan account then such FDRs would be the part and parcel of the Bank record. OR even assuming that they (two FDRs) were returned to the complainant but strangely enough we do not find such an endorsement in that regard with seal & signature of the Respondent Bank on the two FDRs. If according to the Respondents the proceed of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account then in the absence of any endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority on the two FDRs and the fact that the two FDRs are in possession of the complainant, then naturally it leads to a presumption that the two FDRs have not been either closed or its amount is adjusted to the loan account. 14. It is significant to note here that at the time of hearing on admission of this complaint on 21-06-06 the LC for the complainant had filed a memo for adding additional relief (prayer) as a by amending the prayer Col. (a) as a(1). After perusal and hearing, the amendment sought for was allowed accordingly. By the prayer column a the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan Accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. But Respondents have not produced the extract of loan Account of the complainant so far . This loan account would have thrown much light as to the closer of loan account by the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the LC for the complainant the Respondent Bank shall have to maintain the loan Account of the complainant for the loan obtained by the complainant. Obtaining of loan by complainant is not in dispute. When the Respondents have to maintain loan account in the usual course of its banking business, then the non production of any scrap of paper of loan account as called for by complainant, leads to an adverse inference against the Respondents Bank as rightly submitted by the LC for the complainant. 15. Hence for the above said reasons, the contention of the Respondents that the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant & thereby the FDRs are closed does not stand to reason and consequently the FDRs Ledger Register produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 do not come to the rescue of Respondents. The correspondence/letters as discussed supra go to show that the complainant has went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the FDRs and the Respondents went on replying that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to his loan account. At the cost of repetition when the two FDRs do not whisper either closer or adjustment of the amount to the loan account by any endorsement seal & signature of Respondent Bank and when the two FDRs are possession of the complainant it strengthens the contention of the complainant that the complainant has closed his loan account by adjusting the other FDRs & by cash payments and thereby the two FDRs taken as security have been returned to the complainant. The fact that the Respondents went on repeating that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account without explaining as to how the two FDRs have been returned or come in possession of the complainant and this attitude of the Respondent it shows amounts to deficiency in service in not renewing his two FDRs or closing the FDRs by making payment of the proceed. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 3 as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 16. As stated above by prayer column a the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. Prayer Col. a-1 is for directing the Respondents to first renew the two FDRs altogether with upto date accrued interest as mentioned in the FDRs. By prayer column b and c the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to pay the value of the renewed FDRs and to pay compensation equal to the renewed value of the FDRs on account of deficiency of service by the Respondents. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents Bank is directed to renew the two FDRs each for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- together with upto date fixed interest as shown in the FDRs. The Respondents are further directed to pay the value of renewed FDRs to the complainant along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- including cost of litigation. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-03-09) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President. This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Gyanachand Choudhari against the two O.P. (1) Syndicate Bank Main Branch Raichur and (2) The General Manager Syndicate Bank Corporate Office, Bangalore for deficiency in service. Originally this complaint was dismissed by this Forum In the Appeal No. 22/08 the order of this Forum was set-aside and the matter remitted back to this Forum for fresh disposal after due notice to both the parties. After the remand of the case, on 25-09-08 notice of remand was issued be both the parties. In pursuance of the same, both the parties appeared through counsel on 04-11-08. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- The complainant used to invest money in Fixed deposits with Respondent NO-1 Bank in his name or in the names of his family members and had been regularly dealing with all his bank transactions with Respondent. He had invested Rs. 30,000/- in his name and Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai W/o. Late Ratanlal as detailed below: Sl.No. SSD.No. FDR.No. Name Amount 1. 681 129597 Smt. Soshar Bai Rs. 20,000=00 2. 682 129598 Gyanchand Choudhary Rs. 30,000=00 The said FDRs were to mature in 1985. In the meantime the complainant and his mother were in need of money to meet out their legal necessities as such they obtained loan on the above said FDs along with their other FDs Receipts by surrendering the original FD Receipts with the Respondent No-1 Bank. The complainant and his mother cleared the said loans, out of the proceeds of the said other FDs receipts and money from their pocket. Accordingly Respondent NO-1 has returned the above said two original FD Receipts to the complainant after their loan account was fully cleared. Thereafter the complainant took up construction of his house and in the said process the FDRs were mis-placed and thus forget it. In the meantime the complainant had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house the complainant traced the above said original FDRs he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Sashar Bai expired. He was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank and finally he wrote a letter on 22-09-03 and also made requests with Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the said FDRs immediately. But Respondent NO-1 have only asked the complainant to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office and corporate office from Bangalore. On 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the original to the Respondent NO-1. Accordingly the complainant sent the original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go to Puttaparthi for his health checkup in the night itself. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value on the contrary has illegally retained the same with it. All the repeated demands and reminders made to Respondents went in vain. The Respondent NO-2 has informed that Respondent No-1 has been informed to set right his grievance and he has been anxiously waiting for the word from Respondent but in vain. The failure of the Respondents to renew the said FDRs has amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. They are bound to follow the timely instructions of its customers and they cannot keep the instructions in isolation for such a long time. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction to Respondent to produce the loan accounts, extracts and all related documents and to renew the two FDRs together with upto date accrued interest and to pay the value of the renewed FDs and further direction to pay compensation of sum equal to the renewed value of FDRs on account of their deficiency in service. 3. The Respondent No-1 has filed his written version which has been adopted by Respondent No-2. In the written version it is contended that the complaint is not maintainable and it is time barred. Further it is contended that on the two FDs the complainant and his mother has availed loan as per Loan Account No.LD 98/85 and LD 97/85 and accordingly the said original FD Receipts had been deposited with Respondent NO-1. The proceeds of the FDR No. 129597/681 and FDR No. 129596/682 have been adjusted on 09-10-1985 towards the loan account No.LD 98/85 and No.97/85 respectively. Hence the contention of the complainant that the said loan have been cleared from their pocket are all false and baseless. Further the contention of the complainant that Respondent NO-1 returned the said original FDs receipts to the complainant are all false and baseless. As the proceeds of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan accounts, there arise no question of returning to him. The complainant has created a false story with an ulterior motive of gaining unlawfully. At no point of time the complainant has produced the said FDRs as the proceeds of the same were adjusted to the loan accounts. It is specifically denied that on 14-02-04 the complainant was informed over phone to hand over the original FDRs and accordingly he sent the original with letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD etc., The Respondent NO-1 has not at all received the original FDRs as contended by the complainant. It is also strange to note that the complainant resides within walk-able distance from the bank and instead of approaching the bank personally he sent the POD etc., which cannot be believed. Hence there is no on the part the Respondent NO-1 Bank and there is no deficiency in service. The complainant is a businessman and his conduct of keeping silence for abut (20) years is suspicious. The complainant is seeking the particulars of loan accounts pertaining to 1985 after lapse of (21) years and as the records are very old they have been destroyed as per rules. Therefore they are unable to produce the same. However the FDS, ledger extracts showing the details of adjustments made to the loan accounts regarding the proceeds of the said deposits are produced. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy cost. 4. During the course of trial in the first instance the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination in chief and on 15-06-07 he again filed his sworn-affidavit as further chief-examination and got marked in all (18) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn-affidavit of Senior Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1 and working Manager of Regional Office as RW-2 and have got marked two documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. During the course of argument in the first instance the L.C. for OP filed original FDRs Ledger Register containing entries of Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 with consent of both sides, the original FDR Register has been marked as Ex.R-3 and the entries of Ex.R-1 and Ex.R-2 on Page No. 78 & 79 have been marked as Ex.R-3(a) Ex.R-3(b) and the entries regarding other FDRs of the complainant and his mother on Page No. 51 of Ex.R-3 has been marked as Ex.R-3(c). 5. As stated supra after the remand of the case, in pursuance of the notice, both the parties appeared through their respective counsel on 01-12-08. The LC for complainant has filed additional affidavit-evidence of the complainant (after the remand) and produced (3) more documents namely: (1) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 1202, (2) Original Pass Book pertaining to Saving Account No. 4480 and (3) Original Pass Book pertaining to saving Account No. 13761 and these documents have been got marked as Ex.P-19 to Ex.P-21. The Respondents have not adduced any additional evidence after the remand of the case. 6. As seen above, the Honble State Commission in the Appeal Order on Page No-2 in the last Para it is observed as under:- No doubt there is a lapse on the part of the complainant in not moving the OP bank for renewal of the FD. But at the same time since there is no refusal to pay the amount till the demand made by the complainant, the claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of delay as it is a recurring cause of action. Further, on Page No-3 in the last Para it is observed as under:- If the amount payable under the said two FD has been adjusted to discharge the loan there is no reason for the OP to refuse to renew the FD Receipt in-respect of FDRs bearing No. 681 & 682 or to pay matured amount. In this regard there is no proper consideration by the District Forum. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Hence the matter is remitted to the District Forum to dispose of the matter afresh after due notice to both parties. Therefore the Honble State Commission has observed that there is no bar of limitation as it is a recurring cause of action and so the point of limitation needs no consideration. In this background and in the light of the dispute between the parties the following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for.? 7. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1 :- 8. It is the case of the complainant that he being a regular customer of Respondent No-1 Bank had invested Rs. 20,000/- in the name of his mother Smt. Soshar Bai and Rs. 30,000/- in his name under two FDRs bearing No. 125997 and 125998. The two FDRs were to mature in 1985. It is also his case that since he and his mother in need of money to meet their legal necessity, so they had obtained loan on the above said two FDRs along with their other FDRs by surrendering the original FDRs with Respondent No-1 Bank and subsequently they cleared the said loan out of the proceeds of their other FDRs and money from their pocket and accordingly after the loan account was fully cleared. Respondent No-1 Bank has returned the two original FDRs in this case. 9. The complainant has produced two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and correspondence made between him and Respondents at Ex.P-3 to Ex.P-18 and after the remand of the case the complainant has produced the original Pass Book pertaining to his Current Account No. 1202 at Ex.P-19 and two original Pass book pertaining to Savings Account No. 4480 at Ex.P-20 & Ex.P-20(1) and original Pass book pertaining to Saving Account No. 13761 at Ex.P-21. The Respondents Bank have produced Attested Photo copy of FDRs Ledger extract bearing Folio No. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 and also produced FDR Ledger Register at Ex.R-3 with relevant Folio Nos. 78 & 79 at Ex.R-3(a) & Ex.R-3(b). But the Respondents have not produced any document after the remand of the case. 10. It is specific case that the complainant as averred in Para-6 & 7 that after they cleared the loan on the two FDRs out of the proceed of their other FDRs and money from their pocket the Respondent No-1 has returned the two original FDRs in this case. It is further case of the complainant that after he took up construction of his house and in that process he mis-placed the FDRs and in the meantime he had to virtually shut-down his business due to the fire incident in the State Warehouse Corporation Ltd., Raichur, wherein he had stored his goods and so he had shifted to Rajasthan to eake his livelihood. After coming back to Raichur and during the course of white washing the house he traced the above said original FDRs and he requested the Respondent NO-1 Bank to renew the said FDRs. But the Respondent NO-1 went on dodging the matter on one or the other pre-text and in the mean time his mother Smt. Soshar Bai expired. It is also the case of the complainant that he was deeply shocked at the irresponsible attitude of the Respondent NO-1 Bank for renewing his FDRs so he finally wrote a letter dt. 22-09-03 with a request to the Zonal Office, Regional Office, Head office etc. to re-new the two FDRs but of no avail. Respondent NO-1 has only asked him to wait for sometime till they get the permission from their head office. Further, on 14-02-2004 he was informed over phone to hand over the two original to Respondent NO-1. Accordingly he sent the two original FDRs along with his letter dt. 14-02-04 under POD, as he was to go in that night to Puttaparthi for his health checkup. The two FDRs have been duly acknowledged by Respondent No-1. The Respondent No-1 has neither renewed the said FDRs nor has paid its value but has illegally retained the same with them in-spite of all the repeated demands and reminders. This attitude of the Respondents amounted to deficiency in service which is at writ large. 11. The complainant has produced two original FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 and his letters dt. 22-09-03 at Ex.P-3 to the Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Regional Office Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office at Bangalore along with postal acknowledgements. He has also produced his another letter dt. 02-11-03 at Ex.P-6(1) addressed to Respondent No-1 Bank for renewal of the two FDRs with postal acknowledgement. He has also produced his another letter dr. 12-12-03 at Ex.P-7 addressed to Respondent No-1 by Courier Service with copies to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of two FDRs with Courier Delivery Service Note at Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-10. He has also produced his another letter dt. 14-02-04 at Ex.P-11 addressed to Respondent No-1 with copy to Assistant General Manager, Bellary & Deputy General Manager, Bangalore with Courier Consignment Note and Delivery Note at Ex.P-12(1) and Ex.P-12(2). Ex.P-13 is the letter dt. 25-02-04 issued by Respondent Regional Office at Bellary to the complainant stating that they have enquired the matter with their Raichur Main Branch and it was informed that the amount was adjusted to loan account. Ex.P-14 is the reminder letter of the complainant dt. 03-06-04 addressed to Assistant General Manager, Bangalore with request for renewal of the two Fdrs. Ex.P-14(1) to Ex.P-14(4) are the Courier Consignment Notes. Ex.P-15 is the letter of the Respondent Regional Office Bellary dt. 17-06-04 addressed to the complainant stating that the deposits have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to LD A/c. No. 97/85 and for any clarification approach the Branch Manager Raichur (Respondent No-1). Ex.P-16 is the letter of the complainant dt. 21-06-04 addressed to the General Manager, Bangalore requesting for renewal of his two FDRs and despite of his several visits Raichur Branch Respondent No-1 is not in a position to furnish Statement of his Loan Account. Ex.P-17 is the Reply Letter of Respondent Corporate Office at Bangalore dt. 07-01-04 informing the complainant that his FDRs for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- have been closed and adjusted to the loans for which the FDRs were taken as security and he was asked to produce the same at Respondent No-1 Branch, Raichur in case he has got any documentary proof of having closed his loan account by cash payments, for verifying their records and redress his grievances and further advised the Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) to verify the records once again and to set right the things & redress his grievances in full. Ex.P-18 is the Registered Cover with affixed postal stamps & postal seal and affixture of Registered Receipts. 12. As seen from the correspondence made between the complainant and Respondent it shows that the complainant all the while since from 2003 onwards went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the same and the Respondent in their reply letters vide Ex.P-15 have intimated that the amount under FDRs have been closed on 09-10-85 and adjusted to Current Account No. 97/85 and more particularly vide their reply letter at Ex.P-17 the Respondents have informed that the two FDRs have been closed & adjusted to the Loan Account for which the FDRs were taken as security. They have also informed the complainant to produce any documentary proof to their Raichur Branch (Respondent No-1) in case he has closed his loan account by cash payments for verifying their records and redress his grievances and that delay in furnishing the details was due to the fact that the transactions relating to the year 1985 had to be searched and verified. 13. Admittedly the Respondents have not produced the two original FDRs showing that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant. There is no dispute that the complainant had taken a loan, but according to the complainant he has closed his loan account by adjusting amount of other FDRs and by payment of cash and not by adjustment of the two FDRs in this case. If according to the Respondents the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account, then why they have not produced two FDRs showing endorsement in that regard on the two FDRs assumes importance. As stated supra the complainant has produced the two original FDRs which do not show any endorsement with seal and signature of the Respondents Bank for having adjusted the proceed of the two FDRs to his loan account. Of course the Respondents have produced Xerox copy of the Ledger Extract of the FDRs at Ex.R- 1 & Ex.R-2 and original of which produced at Ex.R-3. But how the two original FDRs have been returned to the complainant as contended by the complainant ?. OR how the complainant came in possession of the said two original FDRs is the main question in this case and no explanation is coming forth on behalf of Respondents in answer to the said question. Further the complainant has produced a Registered Post Cover at Ex.P-18 showing postage of this cover to his residential address with the seal of the Respondents Office at Bellary with affixture of postal stamps & postal seal thereon and affixture of Registered Receipts on the said cover. The Respondents have not stated either in the written statement or in the evidence contraverting the postage of Registered cover to the complainant or any evidence that any enquiry having been initiated as to how the two original FDRs have come in possession of the complainant. At the cost of repetition as stated supra the original two FDRs at Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 do not show/bear any endorsement of the Respondent Bank to the effect that the proceed of these FDRs having been adjusted to the loan account of complainant and thereby closing the FDRs. Even they do not bear any seal & signature of the Authority of the Respondent-Bank. Generally when the FDRs of any Bank are adjusted to the loan account, then there shall be an endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority in that regard and on closer/adjustment of the amount to the loan account then such FDRs would be the part and parcel of the Bank record. OR even assuming that they (two FDRs) were returned to the complainant but strangely enough we do not find such an endorsement in that regard with seal & signature of the Respondent Bank on the two FDRs. If according to the Respondents the proceed of the FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account then in the absence of any endorsement with seal & signature of the Bank Authority on the two FDRs and the fact that the two FDRs are in possession of the complainant, then naturally it leads to a presumption that the two FDRs have not been either closed or its amount is adjusted to the loan account. 14. It is significant to note here that at the time of hearing on admission of this complaint on 21-06-06 the LC for the complainant had filed a memo for adding additional relief (prayer) as a by amending the prayer Col. (a) as a(1). After perusal and hearing, the amendment sought for was allowed accordingly. By the prayer column a the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan Accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. But Respondents have not produced the extract of loan Account of the complainant so far . This loan account would have thrown much light as to the closer of loan account by the complainant. As rightly pointed out by the LC for the complainant the Respondent Bank shall have to maintain the loan Account of the complainant for the loan obtained by the complainant. Obtaining of loan by complainant is not in dispute. When the Respondents have to maintain loan account in the usual course of its banking business, then the non production of any scrap of paper of loan account as called for by complainant, leads to an adverse inference against the Respondents Bank as rightly submitted by the LC for the complainant. 15. Hence for the above said reasons, the contention of the Respondents that the amount under two FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account of the complainant & thereby the FDRs are closed does not stand to reason and consequently the FDRs Ledger Register produced by the Respondents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 do not come to the rescue of Respondents. The correspondence/letters as discussed supra go to show that the complainant has went on requesting for renewal of the FDRs by producing the FDRs and the Respondents went on replying that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to his loan account. At the cost of repetition when the two FDRs do not whisper either closer or adjustment of the amount to the loan account by any endorsement seal & signature of Respondent Bank and when the two FDRs are possession of the complainant it strengthens the contention of the complainant that the complainant has closed his loan account by adjusting the other FDRs & by cash payments and thereby the two FDRs taken as security have been returned to the complainant. The fact that the Respondents went on repeating that the amount under FDRs have been adjusted to the loan account without explaining as to how the two FDRs have been returned or come in possession of the complainant and this attitude of the Respondent it shows amounts to deficiency in service in not renewing his two FDRs or closing the FDRs by making payment of the proceed. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service by the Respondents 1 to 3 as alleged. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO:-2 16. As stated above by prayer column a the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to produce his loan accounts extract and all related documents before the Forum and also to furnish copy of the same to the complainant. Prayer Col. a-1 is for directing the Respondents to first renew the two FDRs altogether with upto date accrued interest as mentioned in the FDRs. By prayer column b and c the complainant has sought for direction to the Respondents to pay the value of the renewed FDRs and to pay compensation equal to the renewed value of the FDRs on account of deficiency of service by the Respondents. In view of our discussion and finding on Point No-1 and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondents Bank is directed to renew the two FDRs each for Rs. 20,000/- & Rs. 30,000/- together with upto date fixed interest as shown in the FDRs. The Respondents are further directed to pay the value of renewed FDRs to the complainant along with global compensation of Rs. 20,000/- including cost of litigation. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-03-09) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. N.H. Savalagi, Member. Member. President, Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.