COMPLAINT FILED ON: 04.12.2010
DISPOSED ON:28.11.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
28th DAY OF NOVEMBER-2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINANT | Srinivas, Residing at No.174, Kempegowdanagar, Main Road, Bangalore-560 019. Advocate: Sri.M.Subramani. V/s. |
OPPOSITE PARTIES | 1. The Bangalore Central Co-opertive Bank Ltd, No.1, Central Bank Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18. 2. The Shamrao Vithal Co-Op Bank Ltd. Chamrajpet Branch, No.1 Central Bank Road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore-18. Advocate:Sri.Ashwin S.Halady. |
O R D E R
SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act of 1986 seeking direction against the OPs to pay deposit amount of Rs.11,686/- with interest along with traveling expenses of Rs.2,000/- and compensation for mental tress and agony on the allegations of deficiency in service.
2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-
The complainants mother Late Lakshmidevamma deposited Rs.10,000/- as fixed Deposit from 23.09.1999 till 23.09.2009 for a period of 10 years in her name and nominee as Venkatesh complainant’s son (grand son of Lakshmidevamma) in the first OP-Bank. The maturity value of the bond issued was Rs.43,604/- when the complainant approached OP1 on the maturity of fixed deposit i.e., on 23.09.2009, OP2 issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.31,918/- towards the maturity amount. The complainant objected for the issuance of the cheque for a sum of Rs.31,918/- instead of Rs.43,604/-, OP 2 responded that it has taken over the OP1 and OP1 does not exist. Further OP2 gave an evasive answer that they cannot give the amount mentioned in the bond issued by the OP1. Neither the complainant nor his mother was intimated in respect of the merging of the OP1 to OP2. The complainant visited the OP2 several times which has made him to wait long duration and he has spent more than Rs.2,000/- for traveling the OP2 bank to collect the information from the bank. The complainant has undergone huge mental shock and frustration which cannot be compensated in any manner. OP1 and 2 are liable to refund the deficit amount of Rs.11,686/- along with expenses and compensation. OP1 and 2 have not acted in accordance with the contract and there is a deficiency in services rendered by OPs. The requests of the complainant were turn down by OP1 and 2 to refund the deficit amount, hence the complainant has to approach this Forum.
3. On appearance OPs filed objections by way of version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, the same is liable to be dismissed. It is admitted that OP1 issued a bond of a face value of Rs.10,000/- on 23.09.1999 and maturity value is mentioned as Rs.46,604/-. However the maturity value mentioned in the bond issued is based on certain terms and conditions as mentioned therein, one of them being that the rate of interest payable on the deposit is subject to the directives that may be issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. The OP1 Bank was classified as a weak bank in October 2004 and as per the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the OP1 and 2 on 29.05.2006, OP 1 was taken over by the OP2 Bank. The take over proceedings has also been duly ratified and confirmed by the registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka vide proceedings dt.15.02.2007. As per the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of understanding, it is specifically agreed that the OP2 Bank shall pay the contractual rate of interest from the date of the deposit till the date of merger as per the rate of interest stipulated by the OP1 Bank, after the date of merger, the depositor will be entitled to interest on the said deposit at the rate applicable to the transferee bank namely the OP2 Bank. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the rate of interest as mentioned in the bond till the date of merger i.e., till 26.02.2007 and thereafter from 27.02.2007 till 23.09.2009 i.e., the date of maturity of the bond, the complainant is entitled to the rate of interest stipulated by OP2. The maturity amount of Rs.31,918/- handed over to the complainant by the OP2 Bank is in consonance with the Memorandum of understanding dt.29.05.2006 entered into between the OP1 Bank and the OP2 Bank which is also duly ratified by the registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka. The take over proceedings have been duly notified in all the branches of the OP1 Bank, in pursuance of which all deposit holders like the complainant were required to approach the OP2 Bank and produce certain documents enlisted, in order to comply with the KYC norms. Even though the complainant is aware of the requirements to be complied by him, the complainant has also failed and neglected to discharge his duties as notified. OPs have discharged their statutory duties in consonance with the terms and conditions of the merger proceedings and therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.
4. The complainant to substantiate complaint averments filed affidavit evidence. The Senior Manager of OP2 filed affidavit evidence in support of defence version.
5. Arguments on both sides heard.
6. In view of the above said facts the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:
Point No.1:-Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP2?
Point No.2:-If so, whether the complainant is
entitled for the relief’s now claimed?
Point No.3:-To What order?
7. We record our findings on the above points are:
Point No.1:-Affirmative
Point No.2:-Affirmative in part
Point No.3:-As per final order.
R E A S O N S
8. The undisputed facts are that the mother of the complainant late Lakshmidevamma deposited sum of Rs.10,000/- as fixed deposit in OP1 Bank for a period of 10 years from 23.09.1999 TO 23.09.2009 with maturity value of Rs.43,604/-. The due date of maturity was on 23.09.2009. The complainant approached OP1 on 23.09.2009 to get the maturity amount of the fixed deposit, then OP2 issued cheque for a sum of Rs.31,918/- towards the maturity amount instead of Rs.43,604/- as shown in the fixed deposit receipt. At that time OP2 responded that it has taken over the OP1 and OP1 does not exist. Thus the complainant is claiming deficit amount of Rs.11,686/- due to be payable as maturity value of the fixed deposit which was paid less by OP2.
9. The defence of the OP2 is OP1 was taken over by OP2 as per Memorandum of Understanding entered into on 29.05.2006. As per the terms and conditions of MOU it was specifically agreed that OP2 shall pay the contractual rate of interest from the date of deposit till the date of merger as per the rate of interest stipulated by the OP1 Bank. After the date of merger, the depositor will be entitled to interest on the said deposit at the rate applicable to the transferee Bank namely 2nd OP bank. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to the rate of interest as mentioned in the bond till date of merger i.e., till 26.02.2007 and thereafter from 27.02.2007 till 23.09.2009 i.e., the date of maturity of the bond, the complainant is entitled to the rate of interest stipulated by the 2nd OP. Thus the maturity amount of Rs.31,918/- paid is in consonance with the Memorandum of understanding dated 29.05.2006 entered into between OP1 and 2, which is duly ratified by the registrar of Co-operative Societies in Karnataka. Further it is stated that the take over proceedings have been duly notified in all the branches of OP1 Bank, in pursuance of which all deposit holders like the complainant were required to approach the 2nd OP Bank and produce certain documents enlisted, in order to comply with the KYC norms. The complainant though was aware of the requirements to be complied by him, he has failed and neglected to discharge his duties. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
10.OPs produced the copy of the proceedings of the registrar of Co-Operative Societies in Karnataka, with regard to amalgamation of OP1 Bank with OP2. Annexure-1 is the Memorandum of understanding entered into between OP1 and 2, Annexure-2 is the copy of the letter of RBI to the Chief Executive Office of OP2. Stating no objection to the proposed merger of OP1 with OP2 subject to certain conditions mentioned in the letter. Clause-IV of the letter provides that the acquirer Bank should comply with the know your customer (KYC) norms in respect of the cliental taken over from the target Bank within a reasonable time. Document No.2 is the notification in the form of a circular issued to all the customers of OP1 to comply the KYC norms.
It may be noted that as per clause 5(a) of the MOU entered into between OP1 and 2 all depositors will be issued fresh fixed deposit receipts of the acquirer Bank. The fixed deposit receipt issued in the name of the mother of the complainant provides that the rate of interest payable on the deposit is subject to the directive that may be issued by RBI from time to time. After the merger of OP1 with OP2 no fresh fixed deposit receipt was issued from the acquirer Bank i.e., OP2. It is true that as per MOU the agreed rate of interest was to be paid till the date of merger and after the merger the depositor will be entitled to interest at the acquirer Bank rates, but in the version it is not disclosed as to what was the rate of interest payable on the deposit by acquirer Bank i.e., OP2. In case if fresh fixed deposit receipt was issued mentioning the maturity amount as Rs.31,918/- by OP2, then the complainant could not have any grievances. Without issuing the fresh fixed deposit receipt of the OP2, OP2 was not justified in not paying the maturity amount as shown the fixed deposit receipt.
11.The learned counsel for the OPs contended that the complainant has not complied with KYC norms in spite of Notification made as per document No.2, hence the complainant cannot claim the maturity amount as shown in the fixed deposit receipt issued by OP1. In our view, after the merger of OP1 with OP2, the complainant or his mother should have been duly notified about merger and also to surrender the fixed deposit receipt issued by OP1 and to take the fresh fixed deposit receipt from OP2. No individual notice has been issued by OP2 to the complainant or to his mother. In view of the same only on the ground that as per document No.2 Notification was issued to comply KYC norms, the complainant has not complied the same, as such he is not entitled to claim the amount shown in the FD receipt issued by OP1, cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances, we are of the view that OP2 was bound to pay the maturity amount of the fixed deposit as mentioned in the bond amounting to Rs.46,604/-. Only an amount of Rs.31,918/- has been paid as maturity amount, an amount of Rs.11,686/- is paid less than the amount mentioned as maturity amount in the bond. The same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant is entitled for the deficit amount of Rs.11,686/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
OP2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.11,686/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 24.09.2009 till the date of realization and pay litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.
This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date communication of this order.
Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 28th day of November-2011.)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Cs.
