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.56/2009 Order dated this the 4th day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Ramalingegowda S/o Lingegowda, R/o Challanayakanahalli Village, Basaral Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.Nagaraju., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Branch Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Hallegere Branch, Basaral Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (By Sri.Mallikarjuna Swamy., Advocate) Date of complaint 19.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 22.06.2009 Date of order 04.08.2009 Total Period 1 Month 12 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party Bank to deduct Rs.71,196/- with interest at 8% p.a. from 17.01.2006 up to 30.04.2007 and later at 11.5% p.a. till filing of the complaint and then pay the balance of FD amount to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to the Opposite party Bank to pay the maturity value of Rs.2,42,660/- towards the FD, along with interest at 24% p.a. from 02.02.2009 and also compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant being an agriculturist deposited Rs.1,20,000/- on 02.08.2001 in Opposite party Bank for a period of 90 months and the FD receipt was issued for maturity amount of Rs.2,42,660/- payable on 02.02.2009. After the maturity, when the complainant approached for the payment of the FD amount, the Opposite party failed to release the said amount. In spite of several requests. Even, legal notice dated 30.03.2009 was issued, but the Opposite party has given untenable reply, creating theory of loan, though the complainant has not borrowed any kind of loan. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint. 3. The Opposite party admitting the FD amount deposited by the complainant and receipt of the legal notice and reply and denying the other allegations made in the complaint, it is contended that on 30.11.2005, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on security of the FD and as on 21.12.2005 there was balance of Rs.70,000/-. Again, the complainant applied for loan of Rs.92,000/- on 17.01.2006 on the security of the FD receipt and the complainant agreed for deduction of the earlier loan amounting Rs.71,196/-. The loan of Rs.92,000/- was transferred to his S.B. Account on 18.01.2006. On account of C.B.S. system connectivity problem of Rs.71,196/- from the S.B. Account of the complainant was not transferred to the loan account. But, it remained in the S.B.Account and after 12 to 15 months, the complainant has withdrawn the amount from time to time from his savings account. Since, the complainant discharged the loan of Rs.92,000/- on 06.04.2006, the then Manager without looking in to the first loan balance of Rs.71,196/-, inadvertently returned the FD receipt to the complainant. Again on 16.06.2006, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- and discharged on 16.08.2006 and hence FD receipt was returned to him. The balance of earlier loan was not noticed by the then Manager. In spite of knowing, the non-discharge of the earlier loan to the extent of Rs.71,196/- with interest, the complainant submitted the FD receipt on 13.02.2009 claiming maturity amount. At the time, when the Opposite party verified the accounts, it revealed that the complainant is due of Rs.1,01,534/- in respect of first loan and the same was informed and letter was written to the complainant to deposit. The complainant demanded to pay the maturity amount stating that he is not due of any loan. Therefore, the Opposite party has not released the FD amount and it is not intentional. The complainant is at liberty to get the maturity amount, after paying the loan of Rs.1,01,534/- and Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and therefore, a direction may be given to the same effect to the complainant. 4. During trial, the complainant is examined and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 to C.4. The Opposite party is examined and Ex.R.1 to R.20 are produced. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party proves that the complainant borrowed Rs.1,25,000/- on 30.11.2005 and due of Rs.71,196/- as on 17.01.2006? 2. Whether the Opposite party proves that the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.92,000/- on the security of the FD, agreeing to deduct first loan of Rs.71,196/- and an account of C.B.S. system connectivity, the said amount was not transferred to the loan account and the complainant has withdrawn the said amount from S.B. Account and at the time of discharge of loan of Rs.92,000/-, the FD receipt was returned to the complainant? 3. Whether the Opposite party proves that on 16.06.2006, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- on the security of the FD receipt and discharged on 16.08.2006 and received back the FD receipt? 4. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service in not paying the maturity amount of the FD? 5. What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant has deposited Rs.1,20,000/- with the Opposite party Bank on 02.08.2001 for a period of 90 months and the maturity date is 02.02.2009 and the maturity amount is Rs.2,42,660/- and FD receipt as per the Ex.C.1 was issued. It is also an admitted fact that after the maturity date of the FD, the complainant approached the Opposite party Bank claiming the maturity amount and the maturity amount was not paid and complainant got issued a legal notice Ex.C.3 and Opposite party sent reply Ex.C.4. 9. It is the contention of the Opposite party is that on the security of the FD receipt, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.1,25,000/- on 30.11.2005 and as on 21.12.2005 he was due of Rs.70,000/- and then on the security of the same FD receipt, the complainant applied for loan of Rs.92,000/- to discharge the earlier loan of Rs.70,000/- and requested to pay the balance on 17.01.2006. Therefore, the second loan of Rs.92,000/- was sanctioned and transferred to the S.B. account of the complainant and the earlier loan of Rs.71,196/- as on 18.01.2006 had to be transferred from the S.B.Account to the loan account, but due to C.B.S. system connectivity problem, it was not transferred and the complainant has withdrawn the entire said amount from his S.B.Account from time to time. 10. Now, with regard to the borrowing loan of Rs.1,25,000/- the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.4 On Demand Promote dated 30.11.2005 for Rs.1,25,000/- and Ex.R.3 is D.P. note delivery letter and withdrawal receipt Ex.R.5 on the same date. According to the Opposite party, the complainant has deposited cash of Rs.50,000/- on 21.12.2005 and also Rs.5,000/- was transferred from his S.B.Account on 21.12.2005. The S.B. accounts statement is produced as per Ex.R.2 and Ex.R.2 reveals that on 21.12.2005 Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn towards the loan account and cash of Rs.50,000/- was deposited and Opposite party has produced Ex.R.6 & R.7 to prove the same. Though, the complainant has denied borrowing of loan, but if we peruse the documents Ex.R.2, R.3, R.4, R.5, R.6 and R.7 there is no reason at all for non-accepting this documents and their contents, because these documents are done in the usual course of business in the Bank and the signatures on these documents when compared to the admitted signatures in the complaint and vakalath, clearly established that the complainant has borrowed the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- and has paid amount of Rs.55,000/- totally. Further, according to the Opposite party, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.92,000/- to discharge the balance of loan and executed the documents, the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.9 On Demand Promote on 17.01.2006 and D.P. note delivery letter Ex.R.10 and withdrawal slip Ex.R.11 and Ex.R.12 to transfer that Rs.92,000/- to his S.B. Account. The S.B. Account Ex.R.2 reveals that on 18.01.2006 Rs.92,000/- was credited to his account by transfer from loan account and the statement of that loan account is Ex.R.13 and the complainant has discharged the loan by depositing Rs.89,000/- on 11.02.2006 and Rs.3,000/- on 07.04.2006. 11. According to the Opposite party, as per the mutual understanding, the entire loan of Rs.92,000/- transferred to the S.B. Account, so as to transfer Rs.71,196/- + interest to earlier loan, but due to C.B.S. system connectivity problem it was not transferred and it went on unnoticed, but the complainant has withdrawn the said amount entirely from time to time. The S.B. Account Ex.R.2 clearly proves that on 18.01.2006 Rs.92,000/- from demand loan was transferred to S.B. account and the complainant has withdrawn the amount from his S.B. Account from time to time. There is no reason to suspect the S.B.Account, because the complainant has not challenged the S.B. account entries at all. Even the complainant has suppressed the said facts and has with held the production of pass book of S.B. Account. So naturally, when the loan amount was not transferred from S.B. Account of the complainant, the earlier balance loan remained un-cleared and when the new Manager came, the complainant has paid the loan of Rs.92,000/- as per Ex.R.13 and at that time naturally the then Manager has returned the FD receipt to the complainant. Further, according to the Opposite party, the complainant borrowed loan of Rs.50,000/- on 14.06.2006 by submitting the application Ex.R.14 on the security of the FD receipt and executed the On Demand Promote Ex.R.15 and D.P. Note delivery letter Ex.R.16 and that demand loan account is Ex.R.17 and Ex.R.18 is withdrawal slip and the complainant has discharged the loan on 05.01.2007 as per the loan account extract as per Ex.R.17. Even though, the complainant has given letter Ex.R.19 dated 13.02.2009 to give details of loan due when the Bank refused to pay the entire FD amount on the ground that he was due of loan, the Opposite party has furnished the reply Ex.R.20 stating that he was due of Rs.1,01,534/- as on 31.01.2009 towards the loan of Rs.1,25,000/- borrowed on 30.11.2005. In spite of it, the complainant got issued a legal notice. The account extracts are maintained by the bank in regular course of business and they are admissible under the Bankers Evidence Act and there is no reason to accept the contention of the complainant that he has not borrowed the loans and the signatures of the complainant found on the loan documents produced by the Opposite party, when compared with the admitted signatures of the complainant, it is clearly proved that the complainant has borrowed loan at 3 times from the Opposite party Bank on the security of the FD Ex.C.1 and by over sight due to C.B.S system connectivity problem, the balance of Rs.71,000/- and was not transferred to first loan, but the complainant has withdrawn the said amount from his S.B. account. In spite of it, he has gone to the extent of denying the borrowing loan. Further, in the evidence, the complainant has admitted that when he approached for the maturity amount of the FD, the Bank Manager, informed that he was due of Rs.1,01,534/- towards the loan and deducting the same, the FD would be paid, he told that has not borrowed the loan and demanded the entire FD amount. From the available documentary evidence and oral evidence, it is clearly proved by the Opposite party that the complainant is due of Rs.1,01,534/- as on 31.01.2009 and naturally the Bank has lien over the FD amount and it is entitled to deduct the loan amount and to pay the balance of FD amount. 12. Even though for the S.B.Account, the rate of interest payable by the bank is 3.5% p.a. and for the loan, the rate of interest is 11.5% p.a. and it is contended that the complainant is not liable to pay the interest due to the negligence of the Opposite party, but though there is negligence of the Opposite party Bank in not adjusting the loan amount from the S.B. Account of the complainant, the complainant has waited for nearly 1 year 4 months and thereafter withdrawn the amount, though he was aware that he had not deposited any amount and it is a loan amount. But for 1 year 3 months, the complainant is burdened with the interest at 11.5%. Though, the Bank pays interest at 3.5% amount in S.B. Account. Therefore, for this period of 1 year 4 months due to the negligence of the Opposite party Bank, the complainant is not liable to pay interest and therefore a proper direction is to be given to pay the FD amount deducting the proper loan amount. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party Bank to deduct Rs.71,196/- with interest at 8% p.a. from 17.01.2006 up to 30.04.2007 and later at 11.5% p.a. till filing of the complaint and then pay the balance of FD amount to the complainant. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 4th day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
