BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. P. SUDHIR                                       :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 100/2009 Filed on 11.05.2009

ORDER DATED: 18.07.2016

Complainant:

Divya. V.S, Thulasi Nivas, Aniyoor Temple Lane, Chempazhanthy P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. 

                                       (By Adv. Jayanthi Suresh)

Opposite parties:

1. Federal Bank, Vengode Branch, Kudavoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Senior Manager.
2. M. Vasudevan Potti. V, Senior Manager, Federal Bank, Vengode Branch, Kudavoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram
3. Nazarudeen, Assistant Manager, Vengode Branch, Kudavoor P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. T.S. Jagadeesan, General Manager, Federal Bank, Head Office, Aluva.

This C.C having been heard on 09.06.2016, the Forum on 18.07.2016 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR:  MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:  The complainant is an account holder with the 1^st opposite party.  Her account number is SB A/C No. 6883.  Now it has been changed as SB A/c 13110100068834.  It is known to the complainant that, from her account, Rs. 20,000/- has transferred voluntarily by the 1^st opposite party and a fixed deposit was started in some other person’s name and address, without her request, consent, knowledge or authorization.  This act from the bank authorities was shocking to the complainant.  The complainant has already written two letters to the Senior Manager expressing her grievance in this regard on 20.11.2008 and 15.12.2008.  She got reply from Senior Manager on 02.12.2008 and 23.12.2008 respectively.  The complainant has not given any authorization to anybody to operate her account till this date.  It is known to the Senior Manager also and it is very well evident from his reply letters.  And it is pertinent to note that even though the money is transferred from her account and it is deposited as FD, the FD receipt is not in her address.  It is in some other’s address.   It is evident from the aforesaid act that, even then, without her authorization, request, consent or knowledge the complainant’s account in the bank was operated.  This shows it is a deliberate and intentional act of the Manager with full knowledge about the consequence of the act.  The version of the manager is that upon the advice of the complainant’s father he did the same.  The complainant is in enimical terms with her father for the last few years due to some family problem.  Due to this colluded act the complainant suffered a lot, the complainant could not raise money for her urgent need at the time of hospitalization of her child.  When the complainant approached the bank to withdraw the money to her utter surprise the complainant know the fact that there is only Rs. 1,031/- in her account.  The complainant suffered a lot due to this act.  The complainant never entrust or authorize her father or anybody to operate her account.  The complainant’s account is a single account without any authorization to anybody to operate the same.  The bank authorities do admit that there is no authorization given from her part.  Then how the money was transferred from her account?  The bank authorities have no power or right to operate her bank account according to their whims and fancies.  And not even handed over fixed receipt to the complainant also.  It is also handed over to a stranger.  Hence the bank authorities had done breach of trust.  Their acts and the documents very clearly show that there is an element of deficiency in service and gross negligence, unfair trade practice in the whole act.  The entire act of the bank authorities are not mere accidental or mistake but it is intentional and deliberate.  All the opposite parties have the primary knowledge that they should not operate an account with request, consent, knowledge or authorization of the account holder.  The basic principle of the banking transaction is on trust between the bank and account holder.  The bank is liable for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and gross negligence. 

1^st and 4^th opposite parties filed version contending as follows:  Though the SB account bearing No. 6883 is in the name of the complainant, the funds in the account are contributed by her father Mr. Sudhakaran.  The account is also consistently operated by her father.  The details of the funds contributed byher father is particularly stated below: (1) Rs. 2,000/- on 26.06.2004, (2) Rs. 10,000/- on 26.11.2005, (3) Rs. 7,100/- on 03.10.2008 (4) The rest of the entries in the pass book produced by the complainant constitutes interest on the said amounts.  Her contribution in the account is almost nil and the major part has been contributed by her father.  On 03.10.2008 the complainant’s father approached the 1^st opposite party bank with the complainant’s SB account pass book and had asked to transfer Rs. 20,000/- from the SB account to fixed deposit.  But on verification of SB account the balance available was only Rs. 13,981/- and the staff of the 1^st opposite party informed the same to the complainant’s father.  Immediately the complainant’s father made necessary arrangements to transfer Rs. 7,100/- from his SB account to the complainant’s SB account so as to transfer Rs. 20,000/- from his SB account to fixed deposit.  However when the proceedings were completed, the banking hour was over and hence the transfer to fixed deposit could not be effected.  On 04.10.2008 Rs. 20,000/- was transferred from complainant’s SB account and was converted to fixed deposit for 1 year in the name of the complainant in the address furnished in the bank and the fixed deposit receipt was handed over to complainant’s father.  The opposite parties never had any sort of doubt in the aforesaid transaction as the interest rate for fixed deposit is much higher than that of SB account and would benefit the complainant.  The complainant’s SB account was usually operated by her father.  At the time of the transaction the complainant and her father maintained a cordial relationship.  The custody of the pass book was with her father and the transfer of Rs. 7,100/- from her father’s SB account to her SB account etc. reveals their good relationship.  It is further submitted that the complainant never approached the bank to withdraw money as alleged.  All their allegations are only invented for the purpose of the case.  It is submitted that the complainant’s account was usually operated by her father.  All the previous cash deposit in the SB account were made only by her father.  It is pertinent to note that complainant’s father has never withdrawn any money or done anything prejudicial to the complainant.  The opposite parties never colluded with anybody to cause any damage to the complainant.  The act of the complainant’s father was beneficial to the complainant and hence the opposite parties never objected to operating the account of the complainant by her father.  The opposite parties never committed any breach of trust or unethical practice.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties only benefited the complainant as the amount deposited in fixed deposit will fetch more interest than in the case of SB account.  The conduct of the father by contributing Rs. 7,100/- to create a fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- in the name of the complainant would establish that the allegation made by the complainant to the effect that they are in enimical terms is false.  The complainant after realizing the benefit of the said transaction has come up with unclean hands and malafide intention.  The complainant did not sustain any loss on account of the said transaction and has only gained out of the said transaction.  If the complainant desires to withdraw the money, she has two options viz (a) she can discount the fixed deposit (b) she can avail O.D from the fixed deposit.  In either of the case she will lose only a portion of the interest.  The said option was not exercised by the complainant.  The opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.      

Complainant filed affidavit along with documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6.  Power of attorney holder of the complainant was examined as PW1.  Opposite parties also filed affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Ext. D1 to D3.  Heard both sides and gone through the evidence. 

Issues:

1. Whether any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established?
2. If so, reliefs and costs if any?

Issues (i) & (ii):- The case of the complainant is that she is an account holder in the opposite party bank and her account No. is SB A/c No. 6883.  Now it has been changed as SB A/C 13110100068834.  When she approached the bank to withdraw money from her SB account to meet her child’s medical expenses, she came to know that from her account an amount of Rs. 20,000/- was transferred voluntarily by the 1^st opposite party and a fixed deposit was started in some other person’s name and address without her request, consent, knowledge or authorization.  Opposite parties contended that the averments in the complaint are not correct.  The SB account bearing No. 6883 is in the name of the complainant, the funds in the account are contributed by her father Sri. Sudhakaran.  The account is constantly operated by her father.  The complainant’s father had deposited the following amounts in the complainant’s account as per Ext. D1 to D3.   (1) Rs. 2,000/- on 26.06.2004, (2) Rs. 10,000/- on 26.11.2005, (3) Rs. 7,100/- on 03.10.2008.  On 03.10.2008, the complainant’s father issued Ext. D4 cheque for Rs. 7,100/- in favour of the complainant’s account and on 04.10.2008, Rs. 20,000/- was transferred from complainant’s SB account which will fetch @ 3.5% interest and was converted to fixed deposit which will fetch @ 10.6% interest for one year in the name of the complainant in the permanent address furnished in the account opening form and the fixed deposit receipt was handed over to the complainant’s father.  The opposite parties never had any sort of doubt in the aforesaid transaction as the interest rate for fixed deposit is much higher than that of SB account and would benefit the complainant.  At the time of transaction the complainant and her father maintained a cordial relationship.  The custody of the pass book was with her father and the transfer of Rs. 7,100/- from her father’s SB account to her SB account etc. reveals their good relationship.  The complainant never approached the bank to withdraw money from her account.  Moreover, the complainant’s father has never withdrawn any money or done anything prejudicial to the complainant.  The act of the complainant’s father was beneficial to the complainant and hence the opposite parties never objected to operating the account of the complainant by her father and another reason to keep good customer relation.  The act of the opposite parties only benefited the complainant as the amount deposited in fixed deposit will fetch 10.6% interest than the case of SB account interest of 3.5%.  The complainant did not sustain any loss on account of the said transaction and has only gained out of the said transaction.  If the complainant desired to withdraw the money she can either close the fixed deposit prematurely or she can avail O.D.C.C from the fixed deposit.  In either of the case she will lose only 1% of the agreed rate of interest of 10.6% of the interest for fixed deposit.  As soon as the bank received the complaint from the complainant, she was issued Ext. P2 statement of account in the SB account along with a new F.D (cash certificate) account to the complainant’s letter dated 20.02.2009.  In response to the complainant’s letter dated 15.12.2008, in Ext. P3 it was specifically stated that Sri. Sudhakaran, father of the complainant has remitted Rs. 7,100/- and requested to open a fixed deposit in the name of the complainant and that since the rate of interest for SB is very low, they have opened cash certificate for Rs. 20,000/- for one year @ 10.6% in her name with full freedom to operate the account exclusively by herself.  It was also informed her that they have opened fixed deposit for Rs. 20,000/- at a higher interest rate in the best interest of herself in good faith and without any negligence on their part.  It was also informed her that they have handed over the certificate to Sri. Sudhakaran and confirmed that the receipt has been received at her end.  If she reports that the same as lost or misplaced they will arrange to issue a duplicate one.  The complainant again sent a letter dated 20.02.2009 alleging transfer of funds in a third party’s name.  In Ext. P5 reply it was informed to the complainant that in case she did not require the deposit to continue, informs the branch for its closure and transfer the amount to her SB account.  But the complainant did not respond to the same and she never approached the bank in person for withdrawing the money or for any transaction in her SB account.  Had she approached, the 1^st opposite party would have cancelled the fixed deposit and credited it to the SB account.  The complainant had opened her account with the 1^st opposite party bank on 14.05.2004 by filling the account opening form by her.  In the account opening form, there are specific columns for furnishing present address and permanent address.  In the present address column, the address is given as Santha Bhavan, Sasthavattom, Thulasi Nivas, Aniyoor Temple, Chempazhanthi P.O.  In the permanent address column, the address is given as Santha Bhavan, Sasthavattom, Sreenarayanapuram, Manjamala.  The fixed deposit receipt No. A 436012 dated 04.10.2008 to 04.10.2009 @ 10.6% interest issued in the permanent address shown in the account opening form.  The fixed deposit certificate cannot be issued in the present address as it may change occasionally. 

So from the findings above, we are of the considerate view that the complainant sustained no loss in this transaction.  So she is not eligible for any relief.  So the only option is to dismiss the complaint without any cost. 

In the result, complaint is dismissed.    

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 18^th day of July 2016.      

Sd/-

LIJU B. NAIR                        : MEMBER 

 Sd/-

P. SUDHIR                            : PRESIDENT

Sd/-

R. SATHI                               : MEMBER

jb

C.C. No. 100/2009

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

P1     - Copy of Federal Bank Savings Book

P2     - Copy of letter to complainant from Federal Bank dated 02.12.2008.

P3     - Copy of letter to complainant from Federal Bank dated 23.12.2008.

P4     - Original F.D of Federal Bank of Complainant.

P5     - Letter of opposite party to complainant dated 11.03.2009

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

D1     - Copy of SB pay-in-slip dated 26.11.2005.

D2     - Copy of SB Pay-in-slip dated 26.06.2004.

D3     - Copy of deposits pay-in-slip of Federal Bank dated 03.10.2008.

D4     - Copy of F.D of complainant.

                                                                                                      Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb