This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri A.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.Narayana Rao  Advocate for O.P. and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

 SRI G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.P. to pay the maturity amounts of fixed deposits i.e., 1^st FDR for Rs.98,751/- and 2^nd FDR for Rs.1,29,449/- totalling to Rs.2,28,200/- with subsequent interest at 24% p.a., from the date of realisation and also to pay Rs.25,000/- for loss, injury and deficiency of service and compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and physical hardship and award cost of this complaint and all other reliefs which the court deems fit and just under the circumstances of the case on the following averments:

The O.P. is the State Bank of India, Fort Branch, Vizianagaram working under the control and management of Branch Manager, Vizianagaram.  The complainant i.e., Smt. D.Simhachalam W/o late Surya Rao made two fixed deposits in O.Ps. Bank, the 1^st deposit for an amount of Rs.85,328/- bearing receipt No.31208372837 dt.21-6-2011 and the complainant renewed the said fixed deposit for a further period of 1 ½ years i.e., upto 27-12-2012 and the maturity amount being Rs.98,751/-. The complainant made the 2^nd deposit on 12.4.2012 for an amount of Rs.1,11,824/- bearing receipt No.31453891932 for a period of 1 ½ years i.e., upto 19-10-2013 and the maturity amount being Rs.1,29,449/- but when the complainant approached the O.P. to pay the maturity amount on the 1^st FDR and also requested to pay the 2^nd FDR amount pre-mature without waiting for maturity period as the complainant is subject to sufferings due to old age ailments and high BP and other complications, the O.P. did not consider her request even after repeated visits to the Bank and                                       praying many a time since the complainant was in urgent need of money to meet her pressing medical expenses and other emergency requirements.   Lastly the complainant was forced to serve a legal notice to the O.P. on 20.5.2013 but the O.P. did not react positively and also did not give any reply to the aforesaid notice and dodging the payment of fixed deposit amounts which was due for payment on 27.12.2012 and 19.10.2013.

          In view of the above there is a clear deficiency of service on the part of O.P. besides dereliction in duties, as the O.P. cannot retain the amounts and not expected to with-hold the amounts.  As a result of the above, the complainant is put to much loss, suffering, mental agony, physical harassment and inconvenience due to the wrongful acts and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. in not paying the FDR amounts that too when the complainant was  in dire need of money to meet her pressing medical expenses and other emergency requirements.  Hence, this complaint seeking not only for payment of matured amounts coupled with interest but also for due compensation and costs.

          Counter filed by the O.P. denying the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The O.P. submits that the complainant did not approach the O.P. but one person came to the Bank and obtained the procedure for withdrawal of the matured FDR amount and O.P. also clearly stated that the complainant should bring the original FDR and put her signature on the backside of the FDR and also bring identity proof but the said person or the complainant did not turn up.  Suddenly the complainant did not turn upon and suddenly the complainant sent notice to the O.P.  However the O.P. never refused to pay the F.D.R to the complainant at any time  but the complainant with a malafide intention filed this case even though the O.P. was always ready to pay the fixed deposit amount as per Bank norms and as and when required by the complainant.   The O.P. submits that there is no deficiency of service towards the complainant at any point of time.  Therefore, it is strongly pleaded by the O.P. to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs as there is no fault or deficiency of service on their part.

          Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 are marked on behalf of complainant and no Exhibits were marked on behalf of the O.P.  Heard the arguments. Posted for orders.  The orders are as follows:  The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments vehemently by reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavit and brief written arguments respectively.

          The complainant advanced her main contention stating that there is clear deficiency in service, dereliction in duty and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P.  Even though she approached the Bank several times with repeated requests to pay the matured amount on the 1^st FDR and pre-mature amount on the 2^nd FDR in view of her old age ailments and physical suffering and also  inspite of legal notice served on the O.P., they did not care for servicing her request to pay the amount when she was in dire need of money to meet her pressing medical expenses and other commitments and accordingly her contention can be fairly accepted under the circumstances observed thoroughly in the complaint.

          The contention raised by the O.P. is that the complainant only deputed a representative on her behalf who sought the procedure to be followed for receiving the payment of the amount on the two FDRs which was explained to him clearly and also with an advice to bring the original FDRs by affixing revenue stamp on the reverse side of the same with the signature of the bond holder as per the norms of the Bank and they were always ready to pay the amounts due on the aforesaid two bonds and hence pleaded that there is no deficiency or dereliction of duty on their part, which cannot be accepted but straight away rejected being an untenable ground from any point of view.

          The principles laid down in the following citations are partly relevant in the case on hand as it is also a fixed deposit with the Bank.

I (2007) CPJ 45, 221 (NC)

          Between:  Allahabad Bank Vs. Shiv Swarup Shrivastav - Revision Petition No.2485 of 2004 – Decided on 2.1.2007. 

Para 2:-    Respondent alleged that he had invested in fixed deposit an amount of Rs.35,000/- for a period of one year on 11-11-92 with the petitioner bank and after maturity period the petitioner had declined to pay the maturity amount.  Prayer was, therefore, made in the complaint for refund of the said amount along with interest by the Bank.  Petitioner filed reply on the affidavit of Satish Chand Tiwari, Manager, Unnao Branch of the bank.  It was alleged that respondent was having a Saving Bank Account No.825 with the Bank.  Amounts of Rs.20,000/- on 16.5.1991 and Rs.10,000/- on 10.2.92 were not deposited in that account.  Entries made in the pass-book and ledger book in regard to deposit of these two amounts are fabricated.  As on 11.11.92 an amount of Rs.35,614.10 was lying in credit in the said account including the said amounts and the FDR of Rs.35,000/- was issued after transferring money from the saving bank account.  Though, it was admitted that Ram Gopal Shrivastava was working as a clerk in Unnao branch but it was stated that he was not authorized to receive or deposit money in cash and the respondent in collusion with Ram Gopal Shrivastava got the entries of deposits of Rs.20,000 and Rs.10,000 made in the pass book and ledger book and issued FDR of Rs.35,000.  It was also stated that a criminal case was registered by CBI and on charge-sheet being filed the said employee had been found guilty and sentenced to undergo imprisonment.  Respondent despite demand did not show the receipts regarding deposit of said two amounts.  Liability to pay the amount claimed was emphatically denied.

Para 5:-   On confessing guilt, Ram Gopal Shrivastava was convicted under Sections 409 and 477 A, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of seven months under each section and also fined Rs.1000/- under Section 409, IPC.  To be only noted that respondent was not arrayed as a co-accused in the case.  In support of the stand that the respondent got the fictitious entries of two amounts of Rs.20,000 and Rs.10,000 made in the pass-book and ledger book and issued FDR of Rs.35,000 in collusion with said Ram Gopal Shrivastava, the bank did not lead any evidence except filing the reply to the complaint.  In absence of evidence to that effect and the respondent not being a co-accused in said case 4609/94, the petitioner bank must be held to have failed to prove the said assertion of collusion.  It is admitted by the petitioner that Ram Gopal Shrivastava was working as a clerk on 16.5.91 and 10.2.92 and the period during which entries were made in the pass book and ledger book maintained by the Bank. He was also working on the date the FDR of Rs.35,000 was issued.  Receipt of amount of Rs.30,000 from respondent was admitted by Ram Gopal Shrivastava as may be seen from the judgment dated 12.7.95.  Thus, loss of Rs.30,000 to the bank was caused by Ram Gopal Shrivastava by misappropriating that amount within the scope or course of his employment.  Applying the ratio of Shyrama Devi’s case which rather supports  the respondent the petitioner bank is vicariously liable to pay the amount of the fixed deposit in question together with interest.

In view of the basic principle laid down in the above cited case, the O.P. Bank having received the two deposit amounts is liable to pay the fixed deposit amounts with accrued interest there on and also compensation, damages and costs as the complainant was put to lot of mental agony, harassment in addition of deprivation of due amounts on timely basis since the act of the O.P. is unpardonable in this case.

          Perused the entire material available on record and also the oral arguments advanced by both the parties.   The following are the crucial factors / observations in the case on hand.

1.  Even though the complainant approached the bank and requested many a time to pay the amounts due on the two FDRs and inspite of legal notice served on the O.P., they did not care to pay the due proceeds on the aforesaid two Bonds.
2. The complainant is an aged lady suffering from old age ailments and also advanced strong reason relating to medical expenses and other commitments due to which she was in dire need of money but her request was not serviced by the O.P. by advancing unwarranted reasons.
3. The practice of a banker to inform the complainant is advance of maturity of the FDRs and forwarding a letter to the complainant either for  renewal or for disbursal of due proceeds was not done in this case though the complainant was approaching the bank with a request / demand for payment of matured amounts / due amounts on the said FDRs.
4. There is a clear Consumer-Banking relationship between the complainant and the Bank, which is an established practice and cannot be disputed since the complainant is a depositor.
5. It is clearly evident from the record and also the information available that there is a deliberate negligence, dereliction of duty, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of O.P. as he did not respond positively at any point of time to discharge his obligation towards the complainant inspite of repeated requests and demands       from the complainant.

From all the above discussions and material arguments, it can be

safely concluded that there is a clear deficiency and deliberate negligence on the part of O.P. and the complaint can be allowed in part in favour of the complainant.

                   In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the O.P. to pay the matured amount of Rs.98,751/- on the 1^st FDR and Rs.1,29,449/- on the 2^nd FDR totalling to Rs.2,28,200/- to the complainant with subsequent interest @ 12% p.a., from the respective dates of maturity of the said deposits till the date of final payment and also to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of the complaint which includes advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).   This order shall be complied with by the O.P. within one month from today.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 1^st  day of July, 2014.

Member                                                           President

CC. 78 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                              

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Original copy of FDR Bond dt.21.6.2011
2. Ex.A.2 Original copy of FDR Bond dt.12.4.2012
3. Ex.A.3 Office copy of Registered Notice dt.20.5.2013

For O.P:-   NIL                                                           

                                                                                       President