O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant and his wife are the customers of opposite party 1 and they are maintaining a FCNR (B) deposit in U.S Dollar denomination vide A/c. No.57057328411.  At the time of this deposit the value of the said deposit in US Dollar was 3086.84 which was equivalent for Rs.1.83 lakhs.  According to the complainant, on 23.12.2002 he availed an O.D of Rs.70,000/- against the security of the said deposit dated 31.10.2001.  At the time of availing this 1^st O.D, the O.D was for US Dollar 2312/80.  On 03.04.2003 the complainant paid back Rs.50,000/- from the O.D dated 23.12.2002.  It is stated that on 24.05.2003 the complainant also availed an MLT loan of Rs.35,000/- and the same was closed on 17.03.2008.  According to the complainant, after closing MLT loan and the 1^st OD Rs.70,000/- opposite party 1 returned the FCNR deposit receipt to the complainant.  On 18.03.2008 the complainant again deposited the said deposit receipt and availed an OD for an amount of Rs.45,000/- on 18.03.2008.  According to him, on 03.03.2009 he repaid the above said OD and remitted Rs.48,807/- (including the interest) for closing the said OD.  After closing the 2^nd OD the complainant availed a 3^rd OD for an amount of Rs.1,01,000/-.  It is further stated that the above said 3^rd OD for Rs.1,01,000/- was also closed by the complainant.  Accordingly the opposite party 1 is liable to return the FCNR deposit receipt to the complainant.  At last, the complainant filed a case before the banking Ombudsman but no favourable order was passed from that side also.  On 17.12.2014, the complainant issued a legal notice to opposite party 1 for the redressal of his complaint.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for directing the opposite party to return the FCNR receipt held by the opposite party 1 along with the principal amount of Rs.2 lakhs plus interest etc. etc. 

                   3. This Forum entertained the complaint and issue notice to the opposite parties.  Opposite party 1 to 3 entered appearance and they filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite party 1 and 2, this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.  The opposite party 1 and 2 again contended that the question involved in this case cannot be decided in a summary proceedings of this Forum.  According to this opposite parties, the 1^st OD from the said deposit was Rs.70,000/- and it raised to Rs.90,000/- on the same day.  The complainant only repaid Rs.50,000/- on 03.04.2003 out of this OD.  It is stated that the 2^nd loan was availed on 17.03.2008 but at that time balance amount in the 1^st loan was outstanding.  Opposite parties are also not admitting the liquidation of loan as alleged by the complainant.  According to them, omission or failure to note lean on an FDR or return of the FDR either under good faith or by mistake will not wipe out banker’s right.  If there are means to recover the dues to the bank there is no hurdle on the part of bank in granting any further OD to the customer.  This contesting opposite parties further stated that the complainants only repaid Rs.50,000/-  on 03.04.2003 from the 1^st OD dated 23.12.2002.  According to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant in this complaint has to be dismissed with cost to them. 

                   4. Opposite party 3 also filed his version as follows:  It is admitted that the opposite party 3 is the wife of the complainant and she was impleaded as an opposite party in this case since she was in abroad thereby impleaded as opposite party 3.  She is also admitted the FCNR (B) deposit receipt as pleaded by the complainant and also requested to allow the claim as per the complaint. 

                    5.  When we peruse the complaint, the versions and the records before us, we framed the following issues:

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
2. Whether the opposite parties 1 and 2 committed any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant repaid the OD availed from 1^st opposite party? 
4. Regarding reliefs and costs?

          6. The evidence of this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10 and the oral evidence of DW1 and Ext.B2 to B8.  Ext.B1 was marked through PW1.  Ext.A1 is the term deposit acknowledgment card dated 23.12.2012.  Ext.A2(a) is the copy of FCNR (B) deposit receipt dated 30.01.2014.  Ext.A2(b) is the copy of FCNR(B) certificate dated 30.01.2014.  Ext.A3 is the cash receipt dated 14.05.2014 for Rs.1,76,000/-.  Ext.A4 is the cash receipt dated 09.06.2014 for Rs.1,450/-.  Ext.A5 is the letter dated 26.08.2014 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A6 is the letter dated 11.09.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A7 is the letter dated 04.11.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A8 is the letter dated 10.09.2014 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.  Ext.A9 is the advocate notice dated 17.12.2014 sent by the complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties.  Ext.A10 is the postal acknowledgment card.  On the other side, Ext.B1 is the deposit receipt dated 18.03.2008.  Ext.B2 is the copy of cash key application form.  Ext.B3 is the copy of 2^nd loan bank account statement.  Ext.B4 is the copy of 3^rd loan bank account statement.  Ext.B5 is the copy of 4^th loan account statement.  Ext.B6 is the copy of bank account statement (marked with objection).  Ext.B7 is the copy of Banking Ombudsman complaint dated 10.09.2014.  Ext.B8 is the reply as per complaint of Ombudsman dated 04.11.2014.

                   7. When we examined the complainant as PW1 he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and in his proof affidavit he deposed more or less as per the tune of his complaint.  It is deposed that he and the 3^rd opposite party deposited and the FCNR (B) for US Dollar 3086.84 in 1^st opposite party’s bank and he availed 1^st OD for an amount of Rs.70,000/- on 23.12.2002 and on 03.04.2003 he repaid Rs.50,000/- against the said OD Rs.70,000/-.  In order to prove this fact he produced and marked Ext.A1 deposit acknowledgment card.  On 17.03.2008, he closed the whole OD of Rs.70,000/- the 1^st opposite party returned the FCNR deposit receipt to him.  Again on 18.03.2008 he availed an OD for Rs.45,000/- on security of the said FCNR deposit.  It is again deposed that on 03.03.2009 he paid back the existing OD of Rs.48,807/- and 3^rd OD for an amount of Rs.1,01,000/- was availed from the bank.  According to PW1, when the bank allowed the 3^rd OD on Rs.1,01,000/- it is to see that all the former loan amount if any, where fully liquidated.  It is deposed that on 31.10.2003 the face value of the said FCNR deposit was for US Dollar 3086.84.  The copy of the said FCNR (B) deposit is marked as Ext.A2(a) in this case.  The 3^rd OD balance was partly cleared by PW1 by remitting Rs.1,76,000/- on 14.05.2014 and it is proved by Ext.A3.  Ext.A4 is the remittance of the balance amount of Ext.A3.  On 26.08.2014, the complainant served a notice to opposite party 1 for furnishing the details of the above said FCNR loan.  That letter is marked as Ext.A5 in this case.  Ext.A6 is the reply of Ext.A5, which was issued by opposite party 1 in favour of PW1.  In this Ext.A6, it is interesting to note that, “the account statement of the above referred OD account is annexed here with as per her request”.  But no account statement is seen produced by the complainant.  Ext.A7 is a letter issued by opposite party 1 in favour of PW1 on 04.11.2014.  It contains the details of the bank transaction with regard to the deposit and OD in question.  Ext.A8 is the letter issued in favour of PW1 by the Manager on 10.09.2014 with regard to the forwarding of a representation of PW1 to the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Officer, Kottayam for necessary action.  Ext.A9 is the advocate notice dated 17.12.2014 issued by the complainant’s counsel to opposite party 1.  Ext.A10 is the acknowledgment card of Ext.A9.

                   8. On the other side, 1^st opposite party is examined as DW1 and marked Ext.B2 to B8.  Ext.B1 was already marked through PW1.  At the time of hearing, opposite parties counsel filed a statement of 1^st opposite party dated 28.07.2016 which is also marked as Ext.C1.  When we examine the proof affidavit of DW1, the contents of the proof affidavit is more or less as per the tune of the version of the opposite party 1 and 2.  It is deposed that on 31.10.2001 the complainant’s wife deposited an FCNR US Dollar 2312.60 = Rs.1,11,000/- as an FD to 1^st opposite party’s bank in favour of her and her husband the complainant.  On 23.12.2002, the complainant availed an OD of Rs.70,000/- and an additional OD of Rs.20,000/- against the FD deposit and a total amount of Rs.90,000/- was availed as 1^st OD from the bank.  On 03.04.2003, he repaid Rs.50,000/- and on that date the balance of the 1^st OD was Rs.42,250/-.  On 18.03.2008, the complainant availed a 2^nd OD of Rs.45,000/- and the said OD was also closed on 03.03.2009 by availing another OD against the Fixed Deposit.  The said loan was Rs.1,01,000/- dated 03.03.2009 and the said loan also closed on 21.08.2014.  It was deposed that an amount of Rs.1,94,202/- is outstanding in the said loan account as per Ext.B6 dated 30.04.2015.  This PW1 and DW1 were cross-examined by the counsels concerned in this case and after the closing of the evidence we heard both sides.  At the time of hearing apart from oral hearing both sides submitted argument notes in their favour.

                   9. Point No.1:-  The opposite party bank in their version and in their proof affidavit has taken a strong stand that the complainant has no right to file a case against them because this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the case.  In order to substantiate their contention the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that in order to redress the grievances banking Ombudsman Forum is available and more over this case is bad by non-joinder of necessary party and also stated that since a lot of accounting is existing here and the legal questions are involving here a summary proceeding of CDRF is also not proper.  These questions are not comes under the purview of CDRF, only Civil Courts are entitled to try and disposed of this kind of complaints.  Even though, the opposite party raised this contention they failed to substantiate to prove this contentions before us.  It is come out in evidence that the complainant deposited FD receipt before the bank and the opposite party 1 and 2 are service providers.  The case of the complainant is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties with regard to the closing of the FD receipt in question.  Though the opposite party alleged non-joinder of necessary parties in this case, it is clear that 3^rd opposite party in this case is the wife of the complainant and it is stated that she is made a party to this proceedings as 3^rd opposite party because she is in abroad.  Considering this aspect the contention with regard to non-joinder of necessary party has not been sustained.  In the light of the above evidence we find that this Forum has got jurisdiction to try this case and this case is not bad by non-joinder of necessary party.  Hence Point No.1 is found in favour of the complainant.

                   10. Point Nos. 2 to 4:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 to 4 together.  The question to be considered is whether opposite party 1 and 2 committed any deficiency in service as alleged by PW1 in this case.  It is admitted that the opposite party bank issued an FCNR (B) deposit for 2312.60 = Rs.1,11,000/- in 31.10.2001 in favour of the complainant and her wife (opposite party 3) with a direction for periodical renewal.  As per Ext.B2, it is proved that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.70,000/- on 23.12.2002.  But at the same time, it is to be noted that the figure Rs.70,000/- is rounded and a figure of Rs.90,000/- is written there.  According to opposite party 1 and 2 the enhancement of Rs.20,000/- allowed on the same day, i.e. 23.12.2002 as per the request of the complainant.  PW1 strongly opposed the figure Rs.90,000/- and according to him he availed an overdraft loan of Rs.70,000/- against the FD receipt above referred.  In order to substantiate PW1’s case he is relying Ext.A1 document.  It is seen that the complainant availed the above said loan on 23.12.2002 and on 03.04.2003 he repaid Rs.50,000/- as per Ext.A1.  The said repayment is also endorsed on the overleaf of Ext.A1 and a balance of Rs.42,231/- is also noted there.  That figure is written in red ink and all other endorsement are in blue and black ink.  The handwriting in the 1^st page of A1 and overleaf are also not same.  Anywhere in Ext.A1, there is no mention with regard to the 1^st loan amount Rs.90,000/- as alleged by opposite party 1 and 2 in this case.  If the 1^st OD in favour of the complainant was Rs.90,000/- what prevented to the bank authorities to mention that fact in Ext.A1.  Here, preponderance of fact and probability was in favour of the complainant and we can find that the 1^st OD was only for Rs.70,000/-.  Moreover it can be seen that as per Ext.B2, there is an overwriting of Rs.90,000/- can be seen in the 1^st Page of Ext.B2 and in that over writing areas no signature or any reason were stated by opposite party 1 bank.  When we look into this Ext.B2 the space explaining the “details of securities”, there are about 7 roundings are seen with no explanation.  Here also non-diligence and negligence of the bank authorities can be seen.  In cross-examination, the counsel asked 2 questions to PW1, “Ombudsman þ ൽ bankþ നെ കക്ഷി ചേർത്തിരുന്നു. രണ്ടാമത്തെ loan കുടിശിക ആയപ്പോള് ഒന്നാമത്തെ loan þ ൻറെ FD receipt രണ്ടാമത്തെ loan ലേക്ക് മാറ്റുകയും രണ്ടാമത്തെ loan close ചെയ്ത പുതിയ മാനേജർ ആദ്യ loan വിവരം ശ്രദ്ധിക്കാതെ രണ്ടാമത്തെ loan തിരിച്ചടച്ച ശേഷം മൂന്നാമത്തെ loan þ ഉം തരികയായിരുന്നു എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല. തുടർന്നു വന്ന മാനേജർ ഒന്നാമത്തെ loan ശ്രദ്ധിക്കാതെ മൂന്നാമത്തെ loan close ചെയ്ത് നാലാമത്തെ loan തന്നതാണ് എന്നു പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല”.  It is also admitted that on 08.03.2008 the 2^nd OD for an amount of Rs.45,000/- was availed against the 1^st FCNR of USD 3086.84 and the 2^nd OD closed on 03.03.2009 by availing a 3^rd OD of Rs.1,01,000/- on the same day.  It is also admitted that the 3^rd OD of Rs.1,01,000/- was closed by the complainant on 14.05.2014 by remitting Rs.1,76,000/- and the remaining balance of Rs.1,450/- was also paid on 09.06.2014.  Anyway, it is clear that the 2^nd OD of Rs.45,000/- dated 18.01.2008 and the 3^rd OD of Rs.1,01,000/- dated 03.03.2009 were closed by the complainant as stated above.  The opposite party also has not raised any objection with regard to the closure of the above said 2^nd and 3^rd OD.  The next question to be considered is whether the complainant closed the 1^st OD in question, i.e. Rs.70,000/- as per PW1 and Rs.90,000/- as per opposite party 1 and 2.  At the time of cross-examination PW1 answered, “Ext.A1 പ്രകാരം 50,000-/þ അടച്ചതിന് ശേഷം ബാക്കി തുക 17.03.2008-þ ൽ ഞാൻ അടച്ച് close ചെയ്തിരുന്നു.  17.03.2008-þ ൽ തുക ഞാൻ അടച്ചുവെന്ന് കൃത്യമായി ഓർമ്മയില്ല. ടി തുക അടച്ചതിൻറെ രേഖയൊന്നും എൻറെ പക്കൽ ഇല്ല”.  He adds, “17.03.2008- ൽ ഒന്നാം loanþ ൽ ബാക്കിനിന്ന തുക അടച്ചുവെന്ന് proof affidavitþ ൽ പറഞ്ഞതല്ലാതെ മറ്റെങ്ങും പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ലല്ലോ? (Q) ഇല്ല..(A).  In cross-examination of DW1, “Ext.B2- ൻറെ ഒന്നാം പേജിൽ 70,000/þ രൂപാ എന്നത് enhance ചെയ്ത 90,000/þ എന്ന് ചേർത്തിട്ടുണ്ടv.  Ext.B2þലെ തിരുത്തലുകള്ക്ക് customer ടെ അനുവാദം ആവശ്യമില്ല. പരാതിക്കാരൻ അറിയാതെയല്ല തിരുത്തൽ വരുത്തിയത് . Ext.A6 പ്രകാരം 70,000-/þ എന്നാണ് രേഖപ്പടുത്തിയത് ”.    When we would look into the evidence of this case expect Ext.A1 document, there is no other evidence before us to show that the complainant repaid the whole 1^st OD amount except Rs.50,000/- (repaid on 03.04.2003).  It is true that PW1 deposed that he repaid the whole amount that is why the opposite party bank granted 2^nd OD and 3^rd OD to him.  It is also true that the bank granted the 2^nd and 3^rd OD to the complainant on the basis of the FCNR (B) deposit receipt as stated above.  At the same time, we have to consider the plea put forward by the opposite parties with regard to the circumstances of granting the 2^nd and 3^rd OD.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties submitted that when the complainant availed the 2^nd OD, the new Manager of the Bank has failed to note the pending amount in the 1^st OD and the same is not noted by the subsequent Managers till March 2014.  But the accounts are true and correct.  When we examined this fact it can be inferred that the Manager who passed the 2^nd OD did not verify the details of the 1^st OD and by mistake or oversight he availed the 2^nd OD and the successors are also continued the same.  The opposite party bank is a Major bank and moreover SBT or SBI all are known as Bank of Govt.  The customer’s faith and trust to this bank are so high compare to other schedule banks and other new generation banks.  The negligence or the laches on the part of the responsible persons are not excusable as far as their responsibility and positions are concerned.  The next question to be considered is whether the contention of the complainant to the effect that he paid the whole 1^st OD amount is true or not.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently argued that the sanction of the 2^nd and 3^rd OD in favour of the complainant is a best evidence to show that the complainant remitted the whole amount of the 1^st OD.  Though the complainant has taken a stand to this effect, no convincing evidence to show that he paid the whole amount remaining the 1^st OD except Rs.50,000/- seen in Ext.A1.  The learned counsel appearing for the complainant further argued that if any amount find in 1^st OD as arrears, these arrears have to be treated as liquidated arrears.  In order to answer this point the other side cited a decision reported in, “KLT (2)2011 Page 907 the dictum is “Contract Act 1872 Sec.171 – Even a barred debt can be recovered by existing the banker’s lien – Dismissal of the suit by the bank to recover that debt on the ground of limitation will not extinguish the debt”. As per the decision it is held that, “the bank has general lien over the securities which come to its hands.  It may be in the form of money, negotiable instrument or any form of security or it may be goods”. The opposite party also cited an another decision, passed by NCDRC, New Delhi in State Bank of India Vs. Kumari Sunitha and others, it is ordered that, “the petitioner bank was entitled in law to utilize the maturity proceeds of the FDR to liquidate the amount outstanding in the loan account of Shri. Mahesh Kumar for whom she had stood as guarantor.  Consequently, the petitioner bank cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainants.  The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs”. 

                   11. When we peruse the above cited two decisions, it is clear that the complainant has no right to plea on liquidation or on limitation law.  The bank has got right to take steps against a defaulter for repayment of the dues of the bank with coercive steps.  In this case, it is clear that the 1^st OD was for Rs.70,000/- and the said OD is still pending as repaid.  The opposite party bank has a right to adjust the principal over draft plus interest from the FCNR (B) deposit in question.  The opposite party also cited another decision reported in, “KLT (1) 1992 SC SN 47(C No.62) in Punjab National Bank Vs. Surendra Prasad Sinha the dictum is Limitation Act 1963, Sec.3 – Debt – Limitation – Remedy is barred but the right to debt continues to exist – That right could be exercised in any other manner other than by means of suit – Bank can adjust time barred debt from the security in its possession and custody”.   Here also, the right of the bank to proceed against debtors are clearly accepted.  As per this decision, it also reveals that debt continues to subsists so long as it is not paid.  It can be inferred that the debt subsists in the 1^st OD of the complainant is still existing because it is not paid.  In cross-examination of DW1, he answered, “Ext.A1 ഒന്നാമത്തെ loan-þ ന് നൽകിയ repayment card ആണ് Ext.A1 പ്രകാരം 23.12.2002þൽ വാദി 70,000/þ രൂപാ മാത്രമാണ് loan എടുത്തത് എന്നത് ശരിയാണ്.  2005 Novemberþൽ SBT Core Banking System ആയി.  ഈ System നിലവിൽ വന്നപ്പൊ എല്ലാ loanþ കളും CBSþലേക്ക് മാറി.  2014 മാർച്ച് മാസത്തിലാണ് വാദി ഒന്നാം loan അടച്ചുതീർത്തിട്ടില്ല എന്ന് മനസ്സിലായത്. ടി തുക അടച്ചു തീർക്കണം എന്ന് നിരവധി തവണ . നേരിട്ട് പറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു. രേഖാമുലം ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടില്ല”.  In the light of this deposition, we can come to a conclusion that the 1^st opposite party bank only came to know the non-repayment of the 1^st OD loan of Rs.70,000/- only on March 2014.  As stated earlier, this laches or negligence on the part of the concerned managers or other officials connected to this file are not excusable and they are answerable to the depositors or loanee concerned.  In cross-examination DW1 answered, “ഒന്നാമത്തെ OD enhance ചെയ്തത് proof affidavitþ- ലോ, versionþ ലോ പറഞ്ഞിട്ടില്ല ഒന്നാമത്തെ loan hmZn വാദി അടച്ചശേഷം രണ്ടാമത്തെ loan-þ- ഉം, മൂന്നാമത്തെ loanþഉം എടുത്തുവെന്നും എല്ലാ loanþ ഉം close ചെയ്തു എന്നും പറയുന്നത് ശരിയല്ല” (Q&A).  As we observed earlier that there is no authority on the part of the Manager concerned for enhancing the OD as per Ext.B2.  Hence it is inferred that there is no relevance for Ext.B2 which is produced by opposite party 1 and opposite party 2 in this case.

                   12. In the light of the above discussion, it can be seen that the complainant who availed 1^st loan (Rs.70,000/-) which has not repaid except Rs.50,000/-.  It is also find that the opposite party bank did not grant Rs.90,000/- as 1^st OD to the complainant.  As per the evidence and preponderance of circumstances and probability the plea of the complainant to the effect that he only availed Rs.70,000/- as 1^st OD is proved.  At the time of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties filed a statement of the bank dated 28.07.2016 which is marked as Ext.C1.  As per this statement (Ext.C1) it reveals that the OD A/c.No.57057331673 is due for an amount of Rs.2,25,270/- and as per the fixed deposit of the FCNR (No.57057328411) in question the repayable amount is Rs.2,25,241/- on 31.07.2016.  It is true that this calculation is on the basis of the 1^st OD of Rs.90,000/-.  We already find that the 1^st OD is only for Rs.70,000/-.  Hence the opposite party 1 and 2 has to be calculated the value of the fixed deposit on the basis of 1^st OD as Rs.70,000/-.  The difference of the calculation is for Rs.20,000/- (the admitted remittance is Rs.50,000/-).  In the light of the above discussion, we can find that the opposite party bank committed certain mistake and negligence on their part with regard to this case.  These are amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  At the same time, the complainant is also not approach this Forum with cent percent clean hand though the complainant requested to allow compensation in this case.  Considering the whole nature and circumstances of this case, the complainant is not eligible to get any compensation as prayed.  But on the other side being responsible officials of a bank likes SBT we are not in a position to excuse the act of the opposite parties with regard to the question in issue of this case.  In this case, the 1^st opposite party is the Branch Manager of the bank concerned and 2^nd opposite party is the General Manager of the bank concerned.  Hence they are severally and jointly liable to the complainant.  Therefore the complaint is only allowed in part.

                   13. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to issue a new statement to the complainant considering the 1^st OD as Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand only) (after deducting Rs.50,000/- as repaid amount) as on the date of OD dated 23.12.2002 within one month of receipt of this order.

2. A cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) is also allowed to the complainant from opposite parties 1 and 2 with 10% interest from the date of this order onwards.

3. There is no order for compensation.

         Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of July, 2016.

                                                                      (Sd/-)

                                                     P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                    (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)             :    (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member- II)                 :    (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Thomas 

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 : Term deposit acknowledgment card dated 23.12.2012. 

A2(a) : Copy of FCNR (B) deposit receipt dated 30.01.2014. 

A2(b) : Copy of FCNR(B) certificate dated 30.01.2014. 

A3 : Cash receipt dated 14.05.2014 for Rs.1,76,000/-. 

A4 : Cash receipt dated 09.06.2014 for Rs.1,450/-. 

A5 : Letter dated 26.08.2014 sent by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. 

A6 : Letter dated 11.09.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party

       to the complainant. 

A7 :  Letter dated 04.11.2014 issued by the 1^st opposite party to the  

        complainant. 

A8 :  Letter dated 10.09.2014 sent by the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant.

A9 :  Advocate notice dated 17.12.2014 sent by the complainant’s advocate

        to the opposite parties. 

A10 :  Postal acknowledgment card.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : George Mathew

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Deposit receipt dated 18.03.2008. 

B2 :  Copy of cash key application form. 

B3 : Copy of 2^nd loan bank account statement. 

B4 : Copy of 3^rd loan bank account statement. 

B5 : Copy of 4^th loan account statement. 

B6 : Copy of bank account statement (marked with objection). 

B7 : Copy of Banking Ombudsman complaint dated 10.09.2014. 

B8 :  Reply as per complaint of Ombudsman dated 04.11.2014.

                                                                                             (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) T.T. Thomas, Thannickal House, Kottanad.P.O., Kalampala,

                    Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.

2. Senior Branch Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Thadiyoor Branch, Thadiyoor.P.O, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.,
3. The General Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Head Office, Thiruvananthapuram.
4. Alicekutty. P.M., Thannickal House, Kottanad.P.O., Kalampala, Mallappally Taluk, Pathanamthitta Dist.
5. The Stock File.