CC Filed on 19.02.2010
Disposed on 25.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 25th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 22/2010
Between:
1. Smt. Janaki, Aged about 65 years, W/o. Sri. Gopal. 2. Smt. Jayanthi, Aged about 42 years, W/o. Sri. Suresh Babu. 1 and 2 are residing at: Viveknagar, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. (By Advocate Sri. P. Raghavan & others) | ….Complainants |
-V/s- Syndicate Bank, Robertsonpet, Kolar Gold Fields. Represented by its Manager. (By Advocate Sri. K.V. Shankarappa & others) | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay the maturity value of Rs.1,26,824/- that became due under F.D. No. TD/ALPM 529971 under Account No. 405/13106, dated 14.11.2006 with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs, etc.,.
2. The material facts of complainants’ case may be stated as follows:-
That the complainants deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with OP-Bank at Robertsonpet, K.G.F Branch vide deposit No. TD/ALPM 529971 under Account No. 405/13106 on 14.11.2006. The said deposit receipt would highlight that the deposit matures on 14.11.2009 carrying interest at the rate of 8% p.a. and the maturity value being Rs.1,26,824.17. After maturity date of the said deposit the complainants repeatedly requested the OP-Bank for payment of the amount due, but it failed to pay the amount. The complainants got issued legal notice dated 02.01.2010 and the OP has neither replied nor complied with that notice though it was served on it. Therefore the present complaint is filed before this Forum on 19.02.2010.
3. The OP appeared through Counsel and filed version. The defence of the OP is as follows:-
It is admitted that the Deposit Receipt alleged in the complaint was issued by the officials of the OP-Bank on 14.11.2006 in the name of the complainants for Rs.1,00,000/-, disclosing that the rate of interest was 8% p.a. and the period of deposit was 36 months and the maturity value was Rs.1,26,824.17. It is contended that the complainants deposited Rs.85,000/- by cash on 13.11.2006 to the S.B. account of complainant No.1 bearing No. 15002200027664 and the complainants on the same day requested to convert the S.B. account balance of Rs.1,00,000/- into term deposit which earned more interest than S.B. account and accordingly the officials of OP-Bank prepared the debit slips dated 13.11.2006 with a view to debit Rs.1,00,000/- from the S.B. account of complainant No.1 and also prepared credit slip to credit this Rs.1,00,000/- to the fixed deposit account of complainants and obtained application for term deposit on 14.11.2006 from complainants and issued manually prepared term deposit receipt referred in the complaint. Further they contended that the concerned staff of OP-Bank was required to update these entries in the computerized accounting system which was newly introduced in the Bank. Further they contended that for one or other reason the required entries were not updated in the computerized accounting system, thereby the debit entry for Rs.1,00,000/- was not effected in the S.B. account of complainant No.1 and the required entries were also not updated regarding the fixed deposit receipt account. Further they contended that the newly introduced accounting system which is called as CBS (Core Banking Solution) system started from 26.10.2006 and the Bank staff was either not well trained and acquainted with this new system or the system itself might have gone out on 14.11.2006, thereby the entries in S.B. account of complainant No.1 and fixed deposit account of complainants were incomplete and not updated. Further they contended that due to the said reason the S.B. account balance of complainant No.1 was continuing as earlier and taking undue advantage of this wrong continuation of the balance in the said S.B. account, the complainant No.1 again made a request on 21.02.2007 for issue of another fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- and as per her request an application for fixed deposit for Rs.1,00,000/- was taken on 21.02.2007 and another fixed deposit receipt dated 21.02.2007 was issued in the name of complainant No.1 and that the proceeds of that fixed deposit dated 21.02.2007 has been reinvested from time to time and finally encashed prematurely on 19.12.2009. For these reasons according to OP-Bank the F.D. receipt dated 14.11.2006 alleged in the complaint is not supported by any consideration and the complainants are not entitled to claim any amount alleged to be due under this F.D. receipt. It is stated that when complainants approached for payment on 14.11.2009 requesting to credit the proceeds of this deposit to the S.B. account of complainant No.2, it was found that the CBS system in the OP-Bank had not allowed any transaction shown in the said deposit receipt. Therefore the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. During the course of the proceedings when the case was posted for arguments and when we heard the facts of the case, we thought that the examination of complainants on the question how the consideration was moved for issue of FDR alleged in the complaint, we intended to question the complainants as there was no specific averment in the complaint or in the evidence of complainants regarding this fact. Subsequently the complainant No.1 was present before this Forum and when she was enquired regarding the mode of payment for obtaining the FDR in question she replied that she paid the amount in cash in the hands of Manager in his cabin and she was not issued any receipt for payment of cash except issuing the F.D. receipt alleged in her complaint.
5. The parties filed affidavits and documents in support of their respective contentions. We heard the Learned Counsel for the parties.
6. From the rival contentions the following points arise for our consideration:-
Point No.1: Whether the complainants prove that cash of
Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the hands of the then
Manager of OP-Bank for obtaining the F.D.
Receipt dated 14.11.2006 ?
Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which
reliefs the complainants are entitled to ?
Point No.3: To what order?
After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1:-
The F.D. receipt in question stands in the name of both complainants. This deposit receipt recites “received from 1. Janaki and 2. Jayanthi amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only)”. In the printed FD receipt the blanks are filled up in handwriting. The some other relevant columns in the F.D. receipt are as follows:-
Account No. 405 13/06
Date of issue 14.11.2006
Date of Acceptance 14.11.2006
Period of Deposit 36 M
Rate of Interest 8%
It can be seen that the complainants have wrongly referred the FDR Account No. as 405/13106 instead of 405/13/06. The F.D. receipt recites that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was received from complainants. However from this recital mentioned in the FD receipt it cannot be ascertained whether the payment was by cash or by authorizing to debit the account of complainants maintained by the Bank. The OP-Bank had contended in the version that the consideration for FD receipt in question was by authorizing the debit of S.B. account of complainant No.1 for Rs.1,00,000/- and for some reason that debit entry was not effected. In view of such contention in the version we had to enquire the complainants to ascertain the mode of payment for obtaining the FDR dated 14.11.2006. The complainant No.1 who was present in-person before us told that, the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the hands of the then Manager in his cabin and she was not issued any separate receipt for this payment apart from issuing the FDR receipt dated 14.11.2006. The OP has produced copy of the required debit slip debiting Rs.1,00,000/- to the S.B. account of complainant No.1 and credit slip showing credit of Rs.1,00,000/- to the account of VCC fixed deposit receipt in the name of complainants. Both these debit and credit slips are dated 13.11.2006. In both these slips account Number referred is 405/13/06. Further the debit slip also refers to the serial number of FDR in question. The FDR bears serial No. TD/ALPM 529971. The same serial Number is referred in the debit slip dated 13.11.2006. The then Manager was one K. Kumar, S/o. T.N. Krishanan. The debit and credit slips dated 13.11.2006 referred above bear the signatures of this Manager K. Kumar in the relevant columns. His signatures can also be found on the application filed by complainants for issue of FDR in question by opening an appropriate account and also on the FDR in question issued to complainants. Considering these documents prepared by the officials of OP bank at the same time when the FDR in question was issued, we hold that a strong presumption of fact arises in support of the defence taken by the OP.
The complainant No.1 stated before us on 29.09.2010 that the cash was paid in the hands of the then Manager, when she was specifically enquired regarding the mode of payment for obtaining the FDR in question. The then Manager K. Kumar in his affidavit stated that the said statement made by complainant No.1 before this Forum on 29.09.2010 is false. Therefore according to him he had not received any cash in his chamber from complainant No.1 for issue of FDR in question. The OP had filed before this Forum on 22.09.2010, the copy of application for term deposit presented by complainants on 14.11.2006 and the copies of debit and credit slips prepared on 13.11.2006 for issue of FDR. The complainant No.1 was present before us on 29.09.2010 and stated that cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the hands of Manager in his cabin. Earlier to this date it was not specifically made out in the complaint or in the evidence that the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the cabin of Manager. Therefore in respect of this disputed fact there is only the assertion by complainant No.1 and denial by the then Manager. Except this oral assertion and denial by rival parties there is no circumstantial evidence to accept or reject either of the versions. There is no cross-examination of any of these parties by the rival party. In the usual course of business the statement of complainant No.1 appears to be improbable. Only on the bare assertion of complainant No.1 it is not possible to hold that the then Manager mis-appropriated the cash of Rs.1,00,000/- alleged to have been given to him. The credit and debit slips shown to have been prepared on 13.11.2006 and the application for FDR dated: 14.11.2006 filed by complainant and the account number mentioned in FDR dated: 14.11.2006 support the assertion of the then Manager, that the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was intended to be withdrawn from the S.B. Account of complainant No.1 for crediting to FDR Account relating to complainants. As the then Manager was not cross-examined it is not made out that the credit and debit slips prepared on 13.11.2006 were subsequently concocted. Unless it is shown that these credit and debit slips were subsequently concocted, it is not possible to accept the say of complainant No.1 that the case of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the hands of the then Manager. From the present state of evidence we have to hold that the complainant has failed to establish that cash of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in the hands of the then Manager of OP Bank. We think the liberty may be kept open to complainants to file a separate suit for their redressal, as the parties did not take steps for thorough enquiry on this disputed fact. Unless there is a thorough enquiry, this disputed fact cannot properly be decided in one or other way. The learned counsel for complainants submitted that the OP has not given any reply to the legal notice. The service of legal notice is not denied by OP. It is submitted on behalf of OP that the OP branch has sent the legal notice to the Head Office for preparing the reply with other necessary facts and before the reply could be prepared the OP received the notice of this complaint. The legal notice dated: 02.01.2010 was served on OP on 05.01.2010. The complaint was presented before this forum on 19.02.2010. On the first date of hearing i.e., on 24.03.2010 the OP appeared along with counsel. The OP produced a letter dated: 22.03.2010 sent to the Deputy General Manger, Regional Office, Law & Claims Cell, Bangalore, to show that before their appearance the OP made an attempt to convince the lawyer of complainants regarding the mistaken claim made by complainants. Considering the gap between the date of service of legal notice and the date of filing of the complaint we think the non-reply of legal notice in this case is not a material defect. Hence in the circumstances of the case and the nature of evidence on record keeping liberty to complainants to file Civil Suit for their grievance, we hold Point No.1 in Negative.
POINT No.2:-
As point No.1 is answered in Negative, Point No.2 does not arise for our consideration.
POINT No.3:-
Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs. The complainants are at liberty to file Civil Suit for the redressal of their grievances if any.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
