This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 04-05-12               in the presence of Sri K.V.R. H. Prasad, advocate for the complainant and of Sri J. Nageswara Rao, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking maturity value of FDR bearing No.31206446076 together with interest from the date of deposit till realisation; Rs.50,000/- as compensation towards deficiency of service and mental agony and for costs.

2.   The brief averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainants are father and son.  The 1^st complainant is having SB account with the opposite party vide account No.112656849996.   Both of them on 11-06-10 jointly kept Rs.1,07,450/- with the opposite party as fixed deposit for which it issued FDR bearing No.31206446076.   On maturity the complainants presented the said STDR to the opposite party.  The opposite party credited the maturity value in SB account of the 1^st  complainant and did not allow the complainants to withdraw the amount and kept it in hold.   To that affect the opposite party made an entry in the passbook of the 1^st complainant.   The opposite party on 22-07-11 gave a reply with false allegations to the notice issued by the complainants.   If the allegations in the reply notice are true the opposite party could not have kept quite for about an year, the opposite party failed to take steps immediately after the issue of FDR.   The opposite party is intentionally not allowing the complainants to withdraw the amounts and it amounted to deficiency of service.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.  The contention of the opposite party in nutshell is hereunder:

        The complainants are having SB accounts with the opposite party bearing Nos. 112656849996 and 11265685151 respectively.   The 2^nd complainant deposited Rs.1,00,000/- on 08-06-09 for one year and obtained STDR No.30787184715 and its maturity value being Rs.1,07,450/-.   The 2^nd complainant also deposited another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 08-06-09 and obtained STDR No.30787184964 and its maturity value being Rs.1,07,410/-.   On 09-06-10 the 2^nd complainant requested the bank to reinvest the proceeds of the FDR bearing No.30787184715 in the names of himself and his father          (C-1).   Accordingly, the opposite party issued STDR No.31202916332 for Rs.1,07,450/- by remitting to his SB account.   On 11-06-10 the 2^nd complainant again approached the bank along with his father and brought STDR No.30787184964 and requested the opposite party to credit the proceeds to his account and sought for fresh FDR for Rs.1,00,000/- in his favour.   Accordingly the opposite party after crediting the proceeds of the STDR No.30787184964 issued fresh STDR bearing No.31206404976 for Rs.1,00,000/- on 11-06-10.    On 11-06-10 both the complainants brought the STDR No.31202916332 issued on 09-06-10 in their names and requested the bank to cancel the fixed deposits by crediting the proceeds to the SB account of the 2^nd complainant and also requested to issue fresh STDR for Rs.1,07,450/- in their favour by debiting to the SB account of the 2^nd complainant, so as to get the maturity of both deposits on the same day.   In pursuance of their request the opposite party credited the proceeds of STDR No.31202916332 to the SB account of the 2^nd complainant and issued fresh STDR bearing No.31206446076 for Rs.1,07,450/- in favour of both the complainants.   Due to mistake the amount of Rs.1,07,450/- was not debited to the SB account of the 2^nd complainant.   Therefore, the STDR No.31206446076 was not supported by consideration.   The 2^nd complainant is quite aware that the amount lying to his SB account did not belong to him.  Inspite of that the 2^nd complainant on 26-06-10 fraudulently withdrew Rs.1,06,500/- from out of Rs.1,07,450/- to have unlawful gain.   On 18-06-11 the 1^st complainant approached the bank to encash the proceeds of STDR bearing No. 31206446076.   On verification of the entries in the computer the opposite party found that the said deposit was not figured in the account of the bank as not supported by consideration.  The incumbent manager verified all the records and found no particulars with regard to the said deposit in the systems since no funding had taken place.     The amount of Rs.1,06,500/- did not belong to the complainants.   It is a case of fraud and cheating which requires and involves substantial question of facts.   Therefore the complaint is not maintainable.   The complaint may be dismissed.

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-14 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.

5.  Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the STDR bearing No. 31206446076 was not   supported by consideration?

2.  Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service         by not allowing the complainants to withdraw the proceeds        of STDR bearing No.31206446076.

        3.  Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

        4.  To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this case:-

1. Both the complainants are having SB accounts with the opposite party (Exs.B-13 and B-14).
2. The 2^nd complainant on 08-06-09 took two STDRs bearing Nos.30787184715 and 30787184964 for one year maturity value being Rs.1,07,450/- (Ex.B-1 and B-6).
3. On 09-06-10 the opposite party issued STDR bearing No.31202916332 in the name of both the complainants for Rs.1,07,450/- (Ex.B-5).
4. The opposite party issued STDR No.312064460764 for Rs.1,07,450/- in favour of both the complainants.
5. The disputed STDR is with the complainants.
6. Exchange of notices took place between the parties to the complaint (Exs.A-2 and A-3).
7. The 2^nd complainant withdrew Rs.1,06,500/- on 26-06-10 from his SB account.

7. POINTS 1&2:- The issuance of the disputed
STDR bearing No.3206446076   by the opposite party is not disputed.   It is the obligation of the opposite party to make necessary credit entries while canceling STDRs and debit necessary entries while issuing STDRs.   In the process of crediting and debiting the amounts role of any depositor including the complainant is nil.   According to section 4 of Banker’s Book Evidence Act, it has to be presumed that the disputed STDR was supported by consideration.   Under any stretch of imagination it cannot be said that the complainant obtained disputed STDR by playing fraud.

8.     The 2^nd complainant withdrew Rs.1,06,500/- on 26-06-10 from his SB account ten days after the issue of disputed STDR.   Issue of the disputed STDR and withdrawal of Rs.1,06,500/- by the                            2^nd complainant took place on 11-06-10 and 26-06-10.   Therefore the cause of action for those two transactions had arisen on different dates.   The fraudulent intention, if any, on the part of the 2^nd complainant is in withdrawing Rs.1,06,500/- on 26-06-10.

9.     The inaction of the opposite party to recover the alleged fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.1,06,500/- for about an year and even after giving reply to the notice issued by the complainant amply proved negligence on the opposite party.   The opposite party is at liberty to take suitable action for recovery of Rs.1,06,500/- alleged to have been withdrawn fraudulently by the 2^nd complainant on                      26-06-10.

10.   Not paying the amount to the depositors i.e., the complainants after the maturity date in our considered opinion amounted to deficiency of service.  Under those circumstances, the complainants are entitled to recover the maturity value of the disputed STDR together with ruling rate of interest on the maturity value (depending on duration).  We therefore answer these points against the opposite party.

11.    POINT No.3:-     The complainants claimed Rs.50,000/- as damages towards deficiency of service.  It is the contention of the opposite party that the 2^nd complainant fraudulently withdrew Rs.1,06,500/- on 26-06-10 though aware that the said amount did not belong to him.   The nature of withdrawal of Rs.1,06,500/- cannot be decided by this Forum as it requires full pledged enquiry.  Under those circumstances, we are not inclined to award any compensation towards deficiency of service.   We therefore answer this point against the complainants.

12.   POINT No.4:-  In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is partly allowed as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay the maturity value of the STDR bearing No.31206446076 i.e., Rs.1,14,606/-;
2. The opposite party is directed to pay subsequent interest @6.5% p.a., (contract rate as mentioned in Ex.B-10) on Rs.1,14,606/- from 12-06-11 till realisation.
3. The opposite party is directed to pay costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).
4. The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum,  this the 8^th day of May, 2012.   

          MEMBER                        MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite paries:

                                                                                      PRESIDENT