Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/79/2016

Mogarala Eswara Reddy, S/o Late M.Doraswamy Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India, Tirupati Region, rep. by its Regional Manager - Opp.Party(s)

B.Narahari Reddy

21 Jan 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 24.08.2016

Order Date:21.01.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.79/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

Mogarala Eswara Reddy,

S/o. late M.Doraswamy Reddy,

Hindu, aged about 58 years, Cultivation,

Resident of Maddinayanapalli Village and Post,

Pakala Revenue Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         State Bank of India,

            Represented by its Regional Manager,

            Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         State Bank of India,

            Pakala Branch,

            Represented by its Branch Manager,

            Pakala.                                                                                   …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 10.01.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.B.Narahari Reddy, counsel for complainant, and opposite parties remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite parties 1 and 2 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay EWS scheme maturity amount of Rs.1,13,215/- together with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 28.09.2014 till the date of realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for mental suffering due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and to pay costs of the litigation, and pass other necessary orders as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the 1^st opposite party i.e. Regional Office of State Bank of India (SBI), Tirupati urban, represented by its Regional Manager, Tirupati and the 2^nd opposite party is the branch office of the 1^st opposite party represented by its Branch Manager, Pakala. That the opposite parties have promoted a scheme in the name of EWS for a period of 21 years. As per the advertisement given by the opposite parties, the complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- @ Rs.600/- per month. Accordingly, the complainant has paid a total sum of Rs.7,200/- to the 2^nd opposite party, and the 2^nd opposite party issued passbook bearing No.0129200847500, in which 2^nd opposite party clearly mentioned that the maturity period is 28.08.2014 and also mentioned that the maturity value is Rs.1,13,215/-. That the complainant approached the opposite party No.2 after maturity of the scheme and demanded for payment of maturity amount, but the 2^nd opposite party agreed to pay Rs.41,483/- only as against Rs.1,13,215/-, for which the complainant did not agree. The opposite parties did not give response for the complainant representations. Therefore, he issued legal notice on 16.08.2016 calling upon opposite party No.2, to pay the maturity amount of Rs.1,13,215/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental suffering caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The opposite parties neither gave reply nor paid the amount. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte.

            4.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit and also written arguments and got marked Exs.A1 to A3 on his behalf. Heard the counsel for complainant.     

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii)  To what relief?

6.  Point No.(i):- on perusal of the complaint, chief affidavit and written arguments of the complainant coupled with Exs.A1 to A3, it is found that the opposite parties have introduced a scheme in the name and style of EWS. The period of the scheme is 21 years, i.e. as per Ex.A1 scheme is commenced on 28.08.1992 and date of maturity is noted as 28.08.2014, monthly installment to be paid by the complainant is Rs.600/-. If these entries in the 1^st page of Ex.A1 is true and correct, the maturity amount for 21 years period will be Rs.1,51,200/- but not Rs.1,13,215/-. The entries in Ex.A1 made in red-ink were appears to be over-writings / interpolations. Generally, Banks will not enter the wrong periods in respect of total period of time, if it is for 21 years, the date will be 28.08.2013, but the entry in respect of date of maturity in Ex.A1 shows that it is 28.08.2014, which comes to 22 years. So, these entries itself shadowed by suspicion.

            7.  If the complainant paid monthly installments @ Rs.600/- p.m., such payments should be for the total maturity period of 21 years. But, as per the entries in 2^nd and 3^rd pages of Ex.A1 shows that the complainant made first payment on 28.08.1992 in a sum of Rs.600/-. He made the second payment on 21.09 in a sum of Rs.600/-, third payment is made on 30.12 i.e. with a gap of nearly 3 months and made payment of Rs.1800/- for 3 months, that too, 2 days after expiry of 3 months. Later, he made another payment of Rs.600/- on Jan.30 (no year is mentioned). Finally, he made another payment on July 28 i.e. after lapse of 6 months in a sum of Rs.3,600/-, totally he made payments only for 12 months with irregular payments. The complainant did not make any payment for a period of 6 months from Jan.30 to July.28. As per the scheme said to have been introduced by the opposite parties, the complainant has to pay the installments regularly for 21 years, then only the scheme will be called as matured, thereafter the complainant is entitled to receive the maturity amount. As per the rules of the Recurring Deposit Scheme mentioned in Ex.A1, the RD will be accepted in equal monthly installments of Rs.5/- or multiples thereon with a maximum of Rs.1000/-. The depositor shall at the time of opening the account, stipulate both the amount of monthly installment and total number of installments to be payable by him, which shall not be allowed to be varied or altered later-on. The fixed number of installments for which one can opt are 6, 9, 12, 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, 84, 96, 108 and 120. Even assuming for a moment that the scheme is introduced for 21 years, total monthly installments shall come to 252 installments, which is contrary to the rules of the deposit noted above. As per the said rules, the scheme is for 6 installments, 9 installments, 12 installments i.e. for 1 year, then 2 years, 3 years, 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7 years, 8 years, 9 years and 10 years, but the figure noted on Ex.A1 is for 21 years, it seems that 21 years period was noted to cover the limitation. At the top of first page of Ex.A1, it is noted as “EWS 21 Years” and the entry made at date of maturity is noted as “28.08.2014”. So, the 21 years period is not clarified. Similarly, maturity amount will also varies.

            8.  Complainant did not file any such claim regulations or terms and conditions in this case. Simply by paying Rs.7,200/- in a period of 12 months with irregular intervals, the complainant is claiming Rs.1,13,215/-. So far as default clause is concerned, it is clearly mentioned in the rules for depositors that each installment for a calendar month must be paid on or before the due date i.e. the date on which the account was initially opened. For example, if account was initially opened on 7^th January on payment of 1^st installment, the next installment will be due on or before 7^th February and so on, if not so paid the installment, interest will be charged on the installment in arrears @ 5 paise per every Rs.5/- per month, fraction of a month being treated as full month for the purpose of calculating such interest. It was also mentioned further that fails to pay an installment for a calendar month, no reminders will be sent by the bank and where the default cross for 3 consecutive months, the bank reserves the right of close the account without prior notice to the depositor and transfer the balance at the credit of the account to the savings bank account to be opened in the name of the depositor in terms of authorization obtained on the account opening form. Therefore, the complainant prima facie as per the entries in Ex.A1 itself shows that he has committed default for 6 months from Jan 30 (year not mentioned) till July 28 (year not mentioned). Therefore, his account ought to have closed long back by April 28^th 1993 perhaps. The claim appears to be exaggerative, as he has paid only Rs.7,200/- and claiming Rs.1,13,215/-, as if he paid the total installments for 21 years i.e. till the completion of maturity period, that maturity amount is not in consonance with the alleged maturity period of 21 years or the payments made. Therefore, the claim of the complainant for Rs.1,13,215/- is unsustainable. The mode of payment made on 28^th July is not noted in the passbook whether it is by cash or otherwise. In view of the above latches or defective entries, over-writings, we are of the opinion that complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(ii):-  the complainant in his complaint stated that total maturity period is 21 years and he has made payment of Rs.7,200/- only, that too, irregular payments only for a period of one year. There is no proof / evidence by way of receipts from the opposite parties, in proof of such payments entered in the passbook. Similarly, there is no proof in the scheme introduced by the opposite parties that if the depositor pays Rs.7,200/-, the opposite parties will pay Rs.1,13,215/- after expiry of maturity period of 21 years. Even if simple interest at 12% p.a. is calculated for Rs.7,200/- for 21 years, it comes to only Rs.18,144/-. So, if interest is calculated at 12% p.a. for the amount paid by the complainant in a sum of Rs.7,200/-, it comes to Rs.25,344/- in total, but not Rs.1,13,215/- under any circumstances. Therefore, the claim of the complainant appears to be vague and no proof is placed to show that the complainant has paid the above referred 12 installments also, as the entries are not having any authenticated seals or stamps of opposite parties – bank, either from opposite party No.2 or opposite party No.1. Similarly, there is no evidence to show that the opposite parties have agreed to pay Rs.41,483/- to the complainant. If the opposite parties agreed to pay the said amount of Rs.41,483/-, the complainant ought to have receive the said amount instead of rushing to the Forum.

            10.  However, the opposite parties though served notices (as per internet tracking system details), they did not appear before this Forum either in person or through counsel and finally they were remained exparte on 19.12.2016. Ex.A1 discloses the account No.285 and ledger No.12. Therefore, issuing passbook in favour of the complainant by the opposite parties is appears to be true. The payment shown in Ex.A1 is also true to an extent of Rs.7,200/-, as it was not denied by the opposite parties and no contest was placed by the opposite parties. Therefore, under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that awarding the amount paid with interest could meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,200/- with interest at 9% p.a. and not for any more amounts much less the claim amount mentioned in the complaint. Accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to receive only Rs.7,200/- with interest and the complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- (Rupees seven thousand two hundred only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 24.08.2016, till realization and the opposite parties further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The complainant is not entitled for rest of the reliefs, as he failed to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.      

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 21^st day of January, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                     

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Mogarala Eswara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Passbook with account number 0129200847500 issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant. Ex-A1.
	Office copy of legal notice issued to the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 16.08.2016. Ex-A2.
	Postal acknowledgement from the 2nd opposite party. Dt: 18.08.2016. Ex-B3.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

    

       

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-  

                                                                                                                                President

   

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

            

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.