BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 51/2012.
THIS THE 12th DAY OF OCTOBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Sri. Chatradhar, K.M. S/o. Sharanayya, Age: 59
years, Occ: Development Officer in LIC Branch Office, Raichur, R/o. Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTY :- R.D.C.C. Bank Ltd., Station Road Raichur,
Represented by its Branch Manager, Raichur.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposite bank to pay FD amount
of Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 11-07-12.
Notice served :- 01-08-12.
Date of disposal :- 12-10-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. Gourish. Advocate.
Opposite represented by Sri. S.B. Patil, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Chattradhar K.M. against the opposite RDCC Bank, Branch Raichur U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct the opposite bank to pay FDs interest amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012, to pay compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he invested an amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 31-03-2011 in three FDs of Rs. 2,50,000/- each in opposite bank for a period of 300 days. Thereafter, he requested through his letter dt. 23-03-2012 to renew three FDs from 29-03-2012 for further period of one year. But opposite bank renewed three FDs from 31-03-2012 instead of 29-09-2011 without considering his request and thereby, he sustained loss of interest of Rs. 37,600/- for a period of 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012, his request was not considered intentionally and thereby, opposite bank found guilty under deficiency in its service.
3. Opposite bank appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed its written version by admitting the fact that, the complainant invested amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 31-03-2011 vide three FDs of Rs. 2,50,000/- each for 182 days only and not for 300 days as contended. After maturity of those three receipts i.e, after completion of 182 days. Complainant not received FD amount on maturity value. Thereafter, complainant requested to invest the said amount for one year vide letter dt. 29-03-2012, accordingly, bank authorities have once again invested the amount for one year with effect from 29-09-2011. Bank authorities have not bound to give any notice after maturity of FDs as well as the receipts are with depositors. Rules mentioned on the back of receipts are clear. Complainant is educated person, working as a Development Officer in LIC, he knows the terms and conditions of the transaction. Now, he filed this false complaint by suppressing the real facts. Bank has given 4% SB interest from 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012 by keeping in view of good relationship with its customers. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite bank, accordingly, it prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he invested the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 31-03-2011 in three FDs ( Rs. 2,50,000/- each) for a period of 300 days in the bank of opposite and thereafter, he requested through his letter dt. 23-03-2012 to renew all the three FDs for a period of one year from 29-09-2011 but opposite bank renewed three FDs only from 31-03-2012 instead of 29-09-2011 without considering his request letter dt. 23-03-2012 and thereby, he sustained loss of interest of Rs. 37,600/- from 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012 on three FDs due to negligence of opposite bank.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as noted in
his complaint.?
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In negative.
(2) In negative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1. Documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of chief executive officer of the opposite bank was filed, who is noted as RW-1. Documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 are marked.
7. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents relied by them, we are of the view that, the following facts are undisputed facts in between the parties.
1) It is undisputed fact that, the complainant invested total amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- on 31-03-2011 in opposite bank ( vide three separate FD receipts of Rs. 2,50,000/- each)
2) It is undisputed fact that, the opposite bank paid SB interest at the rate of 4% on the total sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for a period from 29-09-2011 to 31-03-2012.
3) It is undisputed fact that, the complainant is educated and working as a Development Officer in LIC.
8. Keeping in view of the undisputed facts, now let us discuss the disputed facts in between the parties.
9. The prime consideration by us is; whether the maturity period of three FDs receipts vide Ex.P-2 are for 300 days or for 182 days. The complainant is contending that, at the time of investment of the amount, he requested the bank authorities to invest the amount for 300 days and thereby he was under impression that, all the FDs amount was invested for 300 days.
10. This contention of the complainant is against to his own documents i.e, three FDs receipts vide Ex.P-2. Three FDs vide Ex.P-2 were issued by the opposite bank on 31-03-2011 itself, wherein the amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- was invested in three FDs for 182 days only. The complainant being Development Officer working in LIC Department. Keeping silent for about six months, now cannot say that, he was under impression that bank authorities have invested the amount for 300 days. All the three FDs receipts were in the custody of the complainant till renewal of them vide his letter dt. 23-03-2012. As such, the contention of the complainant that, he was under impression that, the said amount was invested by him, for 300 days cannot be accepted.
11. Now, it is admitted fact that, the complainant wrote a letter to the bank on 23-03-2012 for renewal of the said FDs for a period of one year.
12. Admittedly all the FDs were matured on 29-09-2011 after completion of 182 days and the complainant not received the matured amount till writing of his letter dt. 23-03-2012, that means to say that, these FDs amount was in the custody of opposite from 29-09-2011 till 23-03-2012. The complainant not requested the bank authorities immediately after maturity of those receipts to reinvest the amount for further one year. He approached the bank authorities only on 23-03-2012 after lapse of some months.
13. The Bank has given 4% interest by treating the amount laying in his SB account from 29-09-2011 to 23-03-2012.
14. In view of the circumstances stated above, there is no need for us to discuss other facts in detail, as there was no negligence on the part of opposite bank. The complainant himself shown the negligence in reinvesting his amount in the bank, accordingly we are of the view that, the complainant failed to prove the alleged negligence on the part of opposite bank in this case and thereby, we answered Point No-1 in negative.
POINT NO.2:-
15. In view of our finding on Point No-1, the complainant is not entitled to get any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint
POINT NO.3:-
16. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint field by the complainant is dismissed.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 12-10-12)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
