BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.124/2008 Order dated this the 17th day of February 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.R.L.Doddalingegowda S/o Lingegowda @ Piddegowda, Hosahalli, Mandya City, Mandya. (INPERSON) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, State Bank of Mysore, A.D.B. Branch (A.D.B. Branch), Bandigowda Layout, Mandya City. (By Sri.C.Boregowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 24.11.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 05.12.2008 Date of order 17.02.2009 Total Period 2 Months 12 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for a direction to the Opposite party to refund Rs.6,000/- with interest and costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant is having S.B. Account and Kisan Credit Card in the Opposite party Bank from 1985. For construction of house for Silk Worm Rearing he had submitted application for the loan to the Sericulture Officer and loan of Rs.24,000/- was sanctioned and in that connection, the Sericulture Department had sent Rs.6,000/- as subsidy by a cheque dated 17.01.1996 and said amount was paid to the complainant. Since, the complainant could not construct the house for Sericulture, the complainant has re-deposited Rs.6,000/- to the Opposite party Bank. The complainant need not re-deposit the subsidy amount and the Opposite party has not refunded the said amount to the Sericulture Department and the Sericulture Department Officer informed that Rs.6,000/- is still with the Opposite party Bank. Though it is the duty of the Opposite party to refund the said amount, in spite of several approaches, the Opposite party has not refunded the said amount of Rs.6,000/- and it amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 12.07.2008, but the Opposite party has not sent reply. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The said complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to the Opposite party and notice was served and the Opposite party has appeared before the Forum and filed the written version. Admitting that the complainant is a Consumer, it is contended that the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 24 of the Consumer Protection Act, as the transaction took place on 17.01.1996. Admitting that the Opposite party Bank received cheque No.663021 for Rs.6,000/- from the Sericulture Department towards the subsidy for the complainant, but it was time barred cheque, it was sent back and again the Sericulture Department sent cheque No.E.875174 dated 11.12.1996 for Rs.6,000/- and it was received on 18.12.1996 and on 01.01.1997 through transfer credit, the amount was transferred to the complainants account No.ATL.3/23/680, after noting the same in the Sundry Deposit Register and it was mentioned in the pass book of the complainant. It is denied that the subsidy was not credited to his account and the Opposite party has not refunded the amount. Therefore, the Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service. The question of refunding the amount to the complainant or Sericulture Department does not arise. Though the legal notice was issued orally, the complainant was informed about the crediting of the subsidy amount to his account and hence reply was not sent as per the documents of the Opposite party Bank. As per the rules of the Bank, the documents of loan will not be maintained the loan after 10 years. Making use of the same, the complaint is filed after 12 years with concocted allegations. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. During trial, the complainant has filed affidavit and is examined and he has produced Ex.C.1 to C.7. The Opposite party is examined and the documents Ex.R.1 to R.3 are produced. The earlier Manager of the Opposite party Bank has filed affidavit, when the complainant took out summons. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the complainant proves that he re-deposited Rs.6,000/- to the Bank on the assurance of the Manager, to sanction loan? 3. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.6,000/- with interest? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite party Bank and is having S.B. Account and is also holding Kisan Credit Card. In that connection, the complainant has produced Kisan Credit Card issued in 2001 and also Ex.C.5 Agricultural Loan Pass Book starting from 21.03.2003 and savings bank pass book as per Ex.C.6 and is having another pass book as per Ex.C.7 starting which is a continuation of the old S.B. account Ex.C.6. The complainant has admitted in the pleading that towards the loan, Sericulture Department sent subsidy of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant through Opposite party Bank and the said amount was paid to the complainant. Further, the case of the complainant is that since he could not construct the house for Sericulture he was directed to re-deposit the subsidy amount to the Opposite party Bank in order to sanction loan for pump set. Later he came to know he need not deposit the subsidy amount and even the Opposite party has not sent back the amount to the Sericulture Department. When he demanded the amount, the Opposite party has not refunded the amount. The complainant has stated that the cheque No.663021 dated 17.01.1996 for Rs.6,000/- was sent by Sericulture Department. But according to the Opposite party, the Sericulture Department sent cheque No.663021 on 11.01.1996 and it was time barred. Therefore, it was sent back and then the department sent cheque No.E.875174 for Rs.6,000/- through letter dated 11.12.1996 and the said cheque amount was credited to the loan account of the complainant by transfer credit mentioning the same in Sundry Deposit Register and the said amount was mentioned in the account of the complainant and mentioned in the pass book of the complainant, but the complainant has not re-deposited the said amount to the bank. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 the copy of the letter sent by Sericulture Department sending the cheque No.E.875174 dated 29.11.1996 as the cheque No.F.663021 dated 11.01.1996 is time barred. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.2 the copy of the transfer credit dated 01.01.1997 under which Rs.6,000/- has been credited to the ATL.3/23/680 of the complainant Sri.R.L.Doddalingegowda. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.3 copy of the sundry deposit account of the register, wherein we find the entry on 01.01.1997 transferring Rs.6,000/- to ATL.3/23/680 of R.L.Doddalingegowda. So, these documents cannot be doubted at all. 9. In the evidence, the complainant has deposed that the Bank Manager informed that he must re-deposit the subsidy amount, if pump-set loan is required and thereafter the subsidy amount would be refunded and so he deposited the subsidy amount and thereafter the pump-set loan was sanctioned to him. He has deposed that he does not remember whether he deposited the amount of Rs.6,000/- to cash counter or handed over to the hands of the Manager, but he has admitted that he has no bank challan for having deposited the said amount of Rs.6,000/-. 10. So, it is an admitted fact that on 01.01.1997, the subsidy amount of Rs.6,000/- was deposited to the account of the complainant and he has withdrawn the amount. When actually he deposited Rs.6,000/- to the bank is not forthcoming, no challan is produced for having deposited the amount. So, when the transaction has taken place during 1997, there is no document that the complainant demanded the refunded of the amount urging that he need not re-deposit the subsidy amount. But only as per Ex.C.3, he sent letter to Opposite party on 04.10.2007 and then got issued legal notice dated 12.07.2008 as per Ex.C.1 i.e., after a lapse of 11 years. So, mere issue of legal notice will not save the limitation as per Section 24(A) of the C.P. Act. The complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action. The complainant is not definite about the date of cause of action. In fact, as per Ex.C.3 the complainant submitted the application dated 04.10.2007 to the Opposite party Bank claiming the refund of subsidy amount of Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, after lapse of 10 years he sought for refund of the amount. There is no explanation for delay in filing the complaint. So, the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation. 11. The complainant himself has admitted that the subsidy amount was paid to him by the Opposite party Bank. His contention is that he re-deposited the amount to the Opposite party Bank on the ground that without re-deposit of the subsidy amount, the pump-set loan will be not released and according to him, the Manager had assured to refund the amount after the sanction of the pump-set loan. But the complainant has not produced any piece of material to prove that he has deposited Rs.6,000/-. Mere, oral evidence of the complainant that he has deposited the amount cannot be believed at all. The Bank will maintain the document for every deposit of the amount by the customer. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove that he has re-deposited the subsidy amount of Rs.6,000/- to the Opposite party. 12. Such being the case, the demand of the complainant for refund of the amount by the Opposite party Bank is not justified and it cannot be said that the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not refunding Rs.6,000/- to the complainant. 13. Therefore, in view of our above discussion and findings, the complainant is not entitled to refund of Rs.6,000/- from the Opposite party Bank and even the complaint is barred by limitation. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 17th day of February 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
