IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,        

                                                  ALAPPUZHA

           Monday the  14^th day of December, 2020

                              Filed on 01. 02. 2018

Present

1. Sri. Santhoshkumar Bsc. LLB(President)

2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma.BA. LLB(Member)    

                                                  In

                                      CC/No.28/2018

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                          Opposite parties:-

1.  Mumtaz Abdul Jabbar                              1.      State Bank of India

Ervadi Gardens                                                             District Court Road

Civil Station Ward                                                      Branch ,T hathampally

Alappuzha                                                                     P.O, Thondankulangara                                                                                         Alappuzha. Rep by its

2. Ibrahim                                                                          Branch Manager.

S/o Mumtaz Abdhul Jabbar                                        

    = do =                                                              2.      The Asst. General Manger

                                                                                      State Bank of India

3.  Fathima                                                                         Regional Office, at

     D/o Mumtaz Abdul Jabbar                                           Railway gate,

           = do  =                                                           Kadappuram, Bazzar.P.O

     (Adv. Pookunju.K.B &                                               Alappuzha.

  Viswanadhan Pillai)                                                    (Adv. C.Parameswaran)

                                                      O R D E R

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)

          The facts of the complainant’s case in brief are as follows:-

    The 1^st complainant is the mother of the complainants 2 and 3. The 1^st complainant made fixed deposits with 1^st opposite party infavour of her and other minor complainants also.  During this period OP.NO.107/2000(Guardian & Wards) was pending before the District Court, Alappuzha between the 1^st complainant and her divorced husband in which three  Fixed Deposit Receipts(FDRS) in question were deposited as security for the property of the minor complainants 2&3.

          After the settlement of OP.NO. 107/2000 these FDRS have been received from the court and the same were presented to the 1^st opposite party on various occasions for payments.  But the opposite party refused the payment.

          The details of the Fixed Deposits are:-

The contracted rate of interest is clearly stated in the FDRS and the terms of deposit are with benefit of quarterly re-investment as clearly seen on the face of the FDRS, the opposite parties are bound to pay to the complainants the contracted rate of interest with quarterly re-investment, till actual date of payment.The opposite parties are bound to oblige the terms of contract. On this date maturity value plus 12.5% compound interest to the 1^st complainants comes to Rs.74,468/- and maturity value plus 11% compound interest to 2^nd complainants comes to Rs.2,75,459/- and in the same rate is also due to 3^rd complainants which comes to Rs.2,75,459/-.

When the opposite parties refused payment of the Fixed Deposits in spite of repeated presentment and repeated demands, and thereby the dealings of the opposite parties amounts to negligence, harassment, illegality and loss of time and loss of money, and the complainant are subjected to mental agony and so the complainants are entitled to get Rs.50,000/- for each person towards compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainants which the opposite parties are legally bound to pay.

The opposite parties are also liable to pay cost of the proceedings also.

2. Version of the opposite parties are as follows:-

The complainant is neither a consumer nor a beneficiary of the service of opposite parties. Since the Fixed Deposits in issue were paid by the first opposite party by crediting and proceeds of the said deposits in the SB Account No.57038404475 maintained at the first opposite party.Being so the complainant has no right to approach the Commission in the matter and the complaint ought to be rejected on that score alone.The complainants are illegally laying claim over the said amount based on physical receipts retained by them before computerization.

All the alleged deposits were made before computerization and at that time the operation mode of the 1^st opposite party was done by manual based system.Thereafter in 2003, opposite party has migrated to the software BOS and given new account number. In 2005 again changed the account number since the opposite party has migrated to CORE software.The details of alleged FDS, account numbers and amounts paid are given below.

All the above said amounts were closed and paid to 1^st complainant through her SB account No.57038404475.The entire proceedings of the said transactions are reflected the entries in said SB account.Hence the allegations in the complaint are false and baseless and the contrary allegations are ill-founded and illegal.The fixed deposits relied on by the complainants are without any consideration and the complainants are not entitled to claim any amounts from the opposite parties based the fixed deposit receipts.There is no dereliction of duty and deficiency of service from the part of opposite parties.The complainants are not entitled to get any reliefs from the opposite parties. During the course of argument opposite parties counsel put forward the contention of limitation.

3. The point that arise for our determination are as follows:-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?

2. Whether the complainants are entitled to get the value of fixed deposits as per Ext.A1 series receipts.?

3. Compensation and costs if any?

5. Point No.1:-

Ext.A1series are the FDRS dtd. 5/4/1997 and 14/12/2000 (two in numbers) respectively, Ext.A2 is the legal notice dtd.16/12/2017,Ext.A3 series are AD card and postal receipts of Ext.A2,Ext. A4 bank pass book from 2005 to 2011 belongs to account no. 57038404475, Ext.A5 bank pass book from 2006 to 2018 with respect to account No. 6702222124-6,Ex.A6 is the original records of amounttransferred from Saudi Arabia.Ext.A7 is the bank pass book from 30/11/2011 pertaining to account no.57038404475 and Ext.A8 copy of application dtd. 6/9/2008 before District Court, Alappuzha in OP.No107/2000.

The case of the complainant is that Ext.A1 series receipts were produced in OP.No.107/2007 before the District court, Alappuzha by the 1^st complainant.After the disposal of said case she received said documents from the District Court and presented those receipt to the 1^st opposite party bank in several times for payment but opposite party refused the same.

Ext.B1 is the statement of account from 1/6/2007 to 31/12/2007, Ext.B2 is the statement from 20/8/2009 to 31/8/2009.Ext.B3 is Statement of account dtd. 9/6/2006 to 30/6/2007 and Ext.B4 is the statement of account from 14/11/2007 to 30/11/2007.

Opposite party contented that fixed deposits in issue were paid by them and credit the amount to the SB account No. 57038404475 of 1st complainant.According to the opposite parties the fixed deposits were made as per manual ledgers before computerization.In 2003 opposite parties has migrated to software BOS and its account numbers of FDRS were changed two times.In 2005 opposite parties has again migrated to CORE software and thereafter changed the account number ie, the deposit as per Ext.A1receipt dtd.14/12/2002 its present account number is 57038421377 and her another deposits on the same day and same amount, as per Ext.A(a). Its account number is 57038421366. One more Fixed Deposit belongs to the 1^st complainant dtd.5/4/1997 as per Ext.A1(b) and the amount of Rs.14,000/-.Its account number is 57038420725. Opposite parties further contented that the entire amounts as per A1 series were received by the complainants as is evidenced in Ext.B1 to B4 statements.

During the course of argument counsel for the opposite parties raised a contention of limitation But said contention is not taken by them in their version it is mentioned in argument notes.According to them amounts covered as per ext.A1 series FDRS are due on 2002 and 2003.According to the complainant there is no limitation with regard to the fixed deposits.

The dispute is being with regard to the payment of Ext.A1 series of FDR’s.The present complaint filed on 1/2/2018.As per the evidence Ext.A1 and A1(a) deposits were matured on 14/12/2003 and Ext.A1(b) was on 5/4/2002.But the case of the opposite parties that they have credited the amounts as per fixed deposits after the due date of FD’s ie, 2007 and 2009 respectively.In that view of matter the limitation claimed with regard to the due date has no relevancy. It seems that as per the terms of deposit the FD’s will renew with benefit of reinvestment every quarter.Therefore no scope of limitation.It seems that as per the terms of deposit the FDS will renew with benefit of reinvestment every quarter.Therefore, no scope of limitation.

The allegation of the complainant’s are that the entries in Ext.B2 to B4 are take and it is untenable and unsustainable.Since a dispute raised with regard to the bonafides of said documents the opposite party should have produced payment advice on paper corresponding to Ext.B2 to B4.Simply by typing out a statement and giving false certificate under Banker’s Book Evidence Act is not conclusive evidence of payment. For substantiate their part counsel for complaint relied decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 426.

The opposite party resisted and contented hat they have protection available as per Sec.21A of the Banking Regulation Act.Moreover there is no whisper in the complaint as to any mistaken credit entry in SB Account.

The said contention of opposite parties will not help them since Sec.21 of the BR Act focusing the interest charged by the banking company and it is not to be subject to scrutiny by court.The matter in issue in this case is different.

Ext.B2 to B4 statements are issued as the Sec.2A(a) of Banker’s Books Evidence Act and a declaration attached along with above statements.In which it is mentioned that the above particulars are print out of entries taken out from one of ordinary book of bank kept in the electronic form.It is already come out in evidence that in the year 2003 itself bank has migrated to soft ware system. When RW1 was cross examined he has categorically stated that as per BR Act he has deposed to the fact of the version which stands uncontroverted.

The decision produced by the complainant in AIR 2000 SC 426(Iswar Dass Jain(dead) through LRS AppellantVs. Sohan Lal (dead) by LRS, Respondent) said decision is totally unrelated by the fact of the present case.It was observed that the case of a mortgage suit wherein the question is the correctness and veracity of the records produced by the defendant.While in this case the complainant has miserably failed to produce any document which can be compared with records produced by the opposite party bank.Further there is no case for the complainant that there was subsequent interpolationof the records by the bank.In the aforementioned discussions we have no doubt about the veracity of Exts.B2 to B4 statements.

Then the other aspect is that whether the credit entries in Ext.B2 to B5 are tallying with the credit entries in Ext.A4 dtd. 4/2/2009 for the period of 2005 to 2011.On a perusal of said entries the present account numbers,date of closure year and amount with interest as stated by opposite parties are tallying with the credit entries shown in Ext.A4.Those credit entries are pertaining to deposit transfers.Moreover the complainants haven’t any case that the entries in Ext.A4 are fake.During cross examination of PW1, she deposed that the credited amounts are came from her other fixed deposits. But she could not convince us with cogent evidence to prove her part.Further PW1 deposed that the entries in Ext.A4 might be the amounts she transferred from abroad and it is seen in Ext.A6.But said transfer is not reflected in Ext.A4 and A7.

We have thoroughly examined those documents.In Ext.A6 series(5 in numbers) the amounts transferred in the year 2009.Entries in Ext.A4(2005 to 2011) reflect that not only the amounts transferred as per Ext.A6 but also the Fixed deposits amounts.Moreover in all occasions the very next day of deposit transfer credit itself complainants withdraw the said amount.

Therefore, taking the consideration of the fact that the complainants miserably failed to prove that the deposits were in respect of other FD accounts or theamountstransfer from abroad touch the root of her case that FD’s were manipulated or not received by her.Further it was perused and verified by us that the FD’s in question related to the complainants deposit made in bank.Therefore the complainants have no right in making such statement against a Nationalized Bank.

Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the complaint is devoid to any merit and the same is dismissed with compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) to the opposite parties.

           Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 14^th   day of December, 2020.           Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                             Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1          -        Mumtaz Abdul Jabbar(Complainant)

Ext.Aseries-        FD receipts dtd. 5/4/1997, 14/12/2000

Ext.A2       -        Legal Notice dtd.16/12/2017

Ext.A3 series-     AD cards and Postal receipts.

Ext.A4       -        Original Bank pass book

Ext.A5       -        Original Bank pass book

Ext.A6series-      Original records of amounts transferred from Saudi Arabia

Ext.A7       -        Original Bank pass book

Ext.A8       -        Copy of application dtd. 6/9/2008 before District Court, Alappuzha.

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1        -      Reshma Puthusseri(Witness)

Ext.B1            -                       Statement of Account from 1/6/2007 to 31/12/2007

Ext.B2            -                       Statement of Account  from  20/8/2009 to 31/8/2009

Ext.B3            -                       Statement of Account from 09/6/2006 to 30/6/2006

Ext.B4            -                       Statement of Account from 14/11/2007 to 30/11/2007

                                                // True Copy //

To

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-