Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. The present complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for a direction to the Opposite party to pay the deposit amount of Rs.35,000/- and compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-. 2. The case of the complainants is that, the complainant being a Contractor participated in the tender called by Hemavathi Left Bank Canal Division, Nagamangala and his tender was accepted. The complainant has deposited Rs.35,000/- on 11.11.2005 as earnest money in the Opposite party and he had pledged the Fixed Deposit Bond with Executive Engineer of Hemavathi Left Bank Canal Division, Nagamangala. After the completion of the tender work, the FD pledge was released on 28.07.2008 and then the complainant presented the FD certificate for release of the amount to the Opposite party Bank as he is having account in the said Bank. The Opposite party instead of paying the FD amount and interest accrued, returned the same on the ground that there is variation in signature of the complainant. The complainant gave written applications to Opposite party appraising the Opposite party that he is having account in their bank and it can compare the signature of the complainant and then to make payment. But the Opposite party on the flimsy ground that the signature of the complainant has to be attested by the Executive Engineer returned the certificate. The Opposite party has intentionally returned the FD in order to cause unnecessary inconvenience and trouble to the complainant. So, the acts of the Opposite party clearly amount to deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite party has filed version pleading that on 11.11.2005 there was an applications made by Executive Engineer No.7, H.L.B.C. Division, Nagamangala wanting a re-investment deposit receipt of Rs.35,000/- in favour of one Sri.E.Shankar, Hullenahalli Village. In fact, the said re-investment deposit was for a period of 3 years. Hence, the Executive Engineer has deposited the amount and has signed in the deposited column of the R.D. receipt. As per the terms and conditions of the R.D. receipt, it is the Executive Engineer being the depositor is entitled for the payment from the Opposite party Bank. In case, on maturity of the deposit if the beneficiary or holder of the RD receipt directly approaches the bank for payment, the holder of the RD receipt has to get attestation of the signature of the holder of the R.D. receipt. This fact was brought to the notice to the complainant, but the complainant without following the procedure, has given applications to the Opposite party and Opposite party has endorsed on the said applications stating that unless the signature of the holder of R.D. receipt is not duly attested by the depositor, the bank has no right to release the deposited in favour of Sri.E.Shankar. The complainant has made false allegations to defame the reputation of the bank. Therefore, the complainant is liable to pay cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Opposite party for dragging to this complaint. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the complainant has filed affidavit and produced re-investment deposit receipt and 3 letters. In spite of opportunity, the Opposite party has not filed affidavit and nor produced any documents. 5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant and the Opposite party and his counsel have remained absent at the time of hearing. 6. We have perused the records. 7. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the amount of the deposit receipt? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to direction to the Opposite party to pay the R.D. receipt amount with interest? 8. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 9. It is the case of the complainant that being a First Class Contractor, participated in the tender called by the Executive Engineer, Hemavathi Left Bank Canal Division, Nagamangala and his tender was accepted and he has deposited Rs.35,000/- on 11.11.2005 as earnest money deposit in the Opposite party Bank for participating the tender and the complainant had pledged the F.D. Bond with Executive Engineer. After completion of the work, the Executive Engineer released the pledged FD receipt and then the complainant presented the deposit receipt for release of the amount to the Opposite party bank, since he is having account in the said Bank. But, the Opposite party has refused to pay the deposit amount, saying that there is variation in the signature of the complainant and when he gave the letters dated 29.07.2008, 07.08.2008 and 29.08.2008, the Opposite party returned the certificate on the ground that the signature of the complainant has to be attested by the Executive Engineer. 10. The defence of the Opposite party is that it is the Executive Engineer who has deposited the amount and obtained the deposit receipt of Rs.35,000/- as per the application made on 11.11.2005 and the Executive Engineer is entitled for the payment from the Opposite party Bank and if the beneficiary / holder of the R.D. receipt directly approaches the bank for payment, the holder of the receipt has to get attestation of the signature of the holder from the depositor and the same was noted in the letters given by the complainant and without complying the instructions, false complaint is filed. 11. Of course, as per the 3 letters produced by the complainant, the Opposite party has endorsed on the first letter that since there is no signature on the R.D. challan, we want signature to be attested by Executive Engineer and in the second letter it is written that signature should be attested by the Executive Engineer and in third letter also it is written please attest your signature from Executive Engineer and clear instructions to pay to you. The complainant has produced the re-investment deposit receipt for Rs.35,000/-. The date of deposit is 11.11.2005 and maturity date is 11.11.2008. This receipt has been issued in the name of Sri.E.Shankar, Hullenahally A/c E.E.No.7, H.L.B.C. Nagamangala. On the back of this bond, the Executive Engineer No.7, H.L.B.C Division, Nagamangala has endorsed to the effect pledge released to account payee only. It is the specific affidavit of the complainant that he has deposited Rs.35,000/- as earnest money to participate in the tender and pledged to the Executive Engineer, but Opposite party has contended that the Executive Engineer has deposited the amount by submitting the application, but the Opposite party has not filed any affidavit nor produced any documents to prove that the Executive Engineer has deposited the amount. There is no question of deposit of amount by Executive Engineer in the name of the complainant. It is commonly known that the bidder has to deposit the amount as earnest money and pledge the amount to obtain the contract. When the Executive Engineer has clearly endorsed that the pledge released to the account payee only and when the receipt stands in the name of the complainant on account of the Executive Engineer and when the complainant presented the FD receipt, the Opposite party Bank should have deposited the receipt amount to the account of the complainant. It is specific case of the complainant that he has an account in the Opposite party Bank. The Opposite party has not denied that the complainant is having account in the Opposite party Bank. When the Executive Engineer has released the pledge bond to the account payee only and when the complainant is the account holder and in the deposit receipt when his name is found there, there is no question of attestation of the signature of the complainant on the deposit receipt, because the complainant is the account holder in the Opposite party Bank itself and when the amount is to be released to the account payee only, the Opposite party is bound to honour the deposit receipt presented by the complainant and debit the matured amount to the account of the complainant. It is not the case that the address of the complainant given in the FD receipt application is different to the address available in the Bank account in respect of the complainant. The direction of the Opposite party to the complainant to get attestation of the signature by the Executive Engineer is unwanted and uncalled for when the deposit receipt amount is to be debited to the account payee i.e., the account of the complainant Sri.E.Shankar and the documents clearly proves that the complainant is a first class contractor and resident of Hullenahally and the deposit receipt also discloses the name of Sri.E.Shankar, Hullenahally. Therefore, the objection raised by the Opposite party for honouring the deposit receipt to the account of the complainant is not justified and hence, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 12. It is clear from the deposit receipt that the matured amount is Rs.41,847/- as on 11.11.2008 and now the maturity date has expired and the complainant is entitled to that amount. Though the complainant has sought for Rs.35,000/- i.e., amount deposited and Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental shock and agony and inconvenience, the Opposite party is liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 12.11.2008 and there is no necessity to award compensation but the Opposite party is liable to pay cost of the proceedings. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed directing the complainant to present the deposit receipt to the Opposite party Bank and then the Opposite party is directed to deposit Rs.41,847/- with interest at 9% p.a. from 12.11.2008 till this day to the account of the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 30th day of January 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
