JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj, Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sharada Education Trust Sirwar, by its President, Sri. Basalingappa Arakeri against Pragathi Gramina Bank, Sirwar. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- 2. The complainant is a registered educational trust registered under the Indian Registration Act. The said trust is running a school in its name and in order to run the school the trust had keeps some deposits jointly with the educational department in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- on 28-08-02 and on Rs. 20,000/- on 27-08-04 under Kamadhenu deposit receipt with Tungabhadra Gramina Bank Sirwar, (now it is renamed as Pragathi Gramina Bank) and same was jointly to be operated by then Secretary by name G. Laxminarayana and Block Education Officer Manvi. The earlier secretary G.Laxminarayana was died on 22-10-04 and on his place on Mr. Immanuel is chosen as a secretary. After charge as a secretary Mr. Immanuel has searched for the FD receipt in the office of the trust and did not find them but he has find only Xerox copies of the same in the file. Later on he has approached the Respondent Bank to obtain the duplicate of the same and made several oral requests in this regard. But then Manager of the Respondent Bank by name Mr. Shantappa did not care. Later on written correspondence was made in the month of March-08 for which also the Respondent has not cared thereby legal notice was issued on 07-07-08 calling upon the Respondent Bank to issue duplicate FD receipts etc., for that the reply has been given by the Respondent bank on 12-07-08 stating that FDs are encahsed and duly discharged etc., Further it is the case of the complainant that the trust is having a S.B. A/c. No. 7980 with the Respondent Bank and which is being jointly operated by the President and the Secretary of the trust. If any transaction regarding amount is to be done it should be done through SB A/c. only, but in the instant case the Respondent Bank being a recognized financial institution has grossly ignored and erred in this legal aspects and send a letter dt. 12-07-08 saying that the FDs are en-cashed and duly discharged etc., this itself is a gross negligence and deficiency in service to the customer/complainant. Further it is contended that the Respondent Bank under any circumstances should not have allowed anybody to en-cash the FDs in question except the trust by crediting the said amount to the SB Account No. 7980. But the Bank has not done so, therefore there is a negligence on the part of the Bank. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for direction against the Respondent Bank to pay the FD amount of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 20,000/- together with the accrued interest thereon at the rate mentioned in the FD from 28-08-02 and 27-08-04 respectively along with future interest at the same rate and till its realization. The complainant has also claimed damages at Rs. 25,000/-. 3. Respondent Bank appeared in this case through the Advocate, filed written version by admitting the fixed deposits made by the complainant jointly with the Education Department with Respondent Bank. Further it is contended that the FD bearing KDR NO. 160/02 dt. 28-08-02 came to be en-cashed and duly discharged on 01-06-04 during the life time of G.Laxminarayana himself. The said FDr came to be duly discharged by the Block Education Office and Secretary of the trust and therefore the payment was made and the same came to be en-cashed and discharged. Further the KDR. No. 141/04 dt. 27-08-04 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- came to be presented for collection by the BEO and Managing Trustee of the complainant trust and therefore the same was honoured by the Respondent on 10-07-06 and proceeds of the said FDR has been sent to the account of the complainant trust maintained with the said Manvi Branch and it was credited in the account of complainant trust at the said Manvi Branch. Thus both the FDRs have been duly discharged and en-cashed. The complainant is aware of all these true facts and has made false allegations in order to wrongly gain himself. Further it is contended that the proceeds of FDs have been en-cashed on 01-06-04 and on 10-07-06. The complainant trust has kept quite for all these days and have created the false story of searching for the FDRs etc., the alleged secretary Mr. Immanuel has given in-charge of the trust in 2004 itself and the FDRs were maturing on 28-08-03 and on 27-08-05 the conduct of keeping quite for all these days clearly indicate the fact that the proceeds have been realized the complainant-trust. Thus the complaint is time barred and the complainant trust is estopped from claiming other wise. The complainant knowing fully well about all these facts has intentionally filed the complainant and dragged the Respondent to the unnecessary litigation. The Block Education Officer, Manvi is the necessary and proper party. Therefore the complainant is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary and proper party. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 4. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief as PW-1. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of its Manager by name Ramakant Kulkarni, as RW-1. The complainant has got marked (16) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-17.In-rebuttal the Respondent has got marked (4) documents at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-4. 5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. 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 sought for? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 7. There is no dispute that the complainant trust was having two FDs for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- & Rs. 20,000/- with the Respondent Bank on 28-08-02 and on 27-08-04 respectively under Kamadhenu Deposit Receipts with Tungabhadra Gramina Bank Sirwar, (now it is renamed as Pragathi Gramina Bank) and same was jointly to be operated by then Secretary and Block Education Officer Manvi. The earlier secretary G.Laxminarayana was died on 22-10-04. 8. The complainant has produced (16) documents namely: (1) Xerox copy of trust deed marked at Ex.P-1 (2) Xerox copy of two FD receipt are marked at Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 (3) xerox copy of pass book of SB A/c. is marked at Ex.P-4. (4) two letters of complainant dt. 01-03-08 and 17-03-08 are marked at Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-6 respectively (5) The postal acknowledgements are marked at Ex.P-7, Ex.P-7(1) & Ex.P-7(2). (6) Copy of legal notice is marked at Ex.P-8. (7) Reply to the legal notice given by the Respondent is marked at Ex.P-9. (8) Six copies of resolutions are marked at Ex.P-9 to Ex.P-14. (9) Letter of complainant to PGB Manvi dt. 27-10-09 is marked at Ex.P-15 & (10) A letter of PGB Manvi to complainant dt. 06-11-09 is marked at Ex.P-16. 9. The Respondent has filed in all (4) documents namely: (1) Photo copies of two FDRs bearing No. 160/02 & 141/02 are marked at Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2. (2) The letter dt. 16-11-09 of Pragathi Gramina Bank, Manvi is marked at Ex.R-3 and (3) Account Extract of Pragathi Gramina Bank Manvi, is marked at Ex.R-4. 10. From a close perusal of Ex.P-1 trust deed it is clear that the complainant Education Trust by name Sharada Education Trust Sirwar, is existing at Sirwar. Similarly on perusal of Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 that is two FDRs bearing KDR No. 160/02 dt. 28-08-02 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and KDR No. 141/02 dt. 27-08-04 for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- have been issued by the then Tungabhadra Gramina Bank (Present Pragathi Gramina Bank) Sirwar Branch. These two FDRs are clearly speaks that the Respondent Sirwar Branch has received the money in the joint names i.e, in the name of BEO Manvi and Secretary of Sharada Education Trust and Shantiniketan School Sirwar which is also run by the said Education Trust. From the above said documents it is very clear that the transactions under these proceeds have been taken place at Sirwar and in the name of complainant Education Trust which is situated at Sirwar. After completion of the term mentioned under Term Deposit it is the duty of the Respondent Bank to credit the maturity amount to the complainant institutions SB Account No. 7980. The pass book produced by the complainant at Ex.P-4 is clearly speaks that the complainant Education Trust is having its account under the said SB Account Number and which to be jointly operated by President & Secretary. But the Respondent Bank has not credited the said amounts, on perusal of Ex.P-9 the reply letter written by the Pragathi Gramina Bank, Branch Sirwar to the legal notice of the complainant vide Ex.P-8 it is very clear that the amount under FD No KDR. 160/02 Ex.P-2 = Ex.R-1 which is standing in the joint name of BEO Manvi, and Secretary Shantiniketan School, Sirwar has been encashed on 01-06-04 and accordingly same has been discharged. Further in this regard the Respondent Bank in its written version at Para-5 contended that then Secretary of the complainant trust G. Laxminarayana during his life time and BEO have received the amount under the said FDR on its discharge on 01-06-04 and nothing is to be pending in this regard. This version of the Respondent is itself goes to show that there is deficiency on the part of the Respondent Bank, because the said FD has been made by the complainant Education Trust on the strength as a trust giving the amount under the said FD in the name of Secretary or in the joint name of BEO & Secretary without crediting the amount in the SB Account of trust itself is against the interest of the trust. Under such circumstances the say of the Respondent Bank in this regard holds no good. 11. On perusal of Ex.P-3 = Ex.R-2 the another FDR receipt No. KDR 141/04 which is stands in the name of Sharada Education Trust Sirwar and BEO of Manvi it is very clear that this is the FD which is kept by the complainant Education Trust with the Respondent Bank Sirwar and the complainant trust has got every right to receive the amount after its maturity. But the Respondent Bank has not paid the said amount to the complainant trust instead of paying it to the complainant trust the Bank has sent the same for collection through Pragathi Gramina Bank Manvi Branch on 27-08-04 and on 10-07-06 the proceeds sent to the S.B. Account No. 9285 of one Sharada Shikshana Samsthe, Manvi and the amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been credited in the said account number. It is worth while to here note that the Sharada Shikshana Samsthe is no way concerned to the complainant Education Trust and the amount deposited under FDR No. KDR 141/04. The account number of Sharada Education Trust and the account number of Sharada Shikshana Samsthe are totally different, this fact has been clarified by the Pragathi Gramina Bank Manvi through its letter dt. 06-11-09 under Ex.P-16. The Respondent Bank has not produced any documents to show that the Sharada Shikshana Samsthe and Sharada Education Trust are one and the same and said Sharada Shikshana Samsthe Manvi is being run by the said Sharada Education trust Sirwar. In the absence of that the sending of the amount under FD 141/02 to the said Shikshana Samsthe of Manvi is nothing but negligence on the part of the Respondent Bank. Under the above circumstances the say of the Respondent Bank regarding discharge of the FD KDR No. 141/02 dt. 27-08-04 for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- by sending the same for collection to the Pragathi Gramina Bank Manvi and sending the FDR to the account of complainant trust at Manvi holds no good. Hence we hold that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank in discharging the FDs. So Point No-1 is answered in the affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 12. The complainant has sought for direction to issue duplicate of the FDs bearing No. KDR 160/02 dt. 28-08-02 and KDR No. 141/02 dt. 27-08-04 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively along with upto date interest and Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation along with cost of the proceedings. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed in Point NO-1, we feel it just and proper to order for issue of duplicate of the above said FDs along with upto date interest as mentioned in the said FDs. In regard to the compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is concerned, we feel that the claim of the complainant is very high and excessive one, hence we feel it is just and proper to award Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant including deficiency in service and cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: POINT NO.3:- 13. In view of our findings on Point No-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed against Respondent. The Respondent Bank is hereby directed to issue duplicate FDRs bearing No. KDR 160/02 dt. 28-08-02 and KDR No. 141/02 dt. 27-08-04 for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- respectively to the complainant and also directed to pay the upto date interest as mentioned in the FDRs. The complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation, deficiency in service and cost of litigation. The Respondent has to comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 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 01-12-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
