BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Thursday the 11th day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 23/08
Between:
V.V.Ramana Reddy, S/o. V. Narayana Reddy,
R/o. Bollaram Village, Nandikotkur Mandal, Now working at as Lecturer in Government Degree College, Nandyal. … Complainant
Versus
- The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur Post and Mandal, Kurnool District.
2. The Regional Manager, The Zonal Office, Andhra Bank,
Near Ballery Chourastha, Kurnool.
3. The General Manager, Andhra Bank, Head Office,
Saifabad, Hyderabad-500 004. … Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.C.P.Maddilety, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, Advocate, for the opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 called absent set ex-parte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.23/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act seeking direction on the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.30,000/- with accrued interest vide bond No. KTD 20020285 , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case alleging deficiency of the opposite parties in refunding the mature amount of said FDR inspite of its maturity by 22-6-2004 and the clearance of loan avail on it along with interest on 4-4-2003 itself and the non response of the opposite parties to demand and legal notice dated 23-11-2007 .
2. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 to 3 caused their appearance to their counsel and contested the case filling written version of the opposite party No.1 and its adoption by opposite parties 2 and 3 denying any deficiency and there by any of their liability to the complainant’s claim and seeking dismissal of the complainants case with cost.
3. The written version of the opposite party No.1 , adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3, besides questioning the justness and maintainability of the complainants case and denying any deficiency on its part allege the case of the complainant is false and on misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment of real facts . It submits that the FD bond No. KTD 19990202 dated 22-6-1999 for Rs.50,000/- was obtained by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 for duration of three years and on its maturity on 22-6-2002 for Rs.69,239/- the complainant approached on 22-6-2002 the opposite party No.1 for issual of two bonds one for Rs.40,000/- and another for Rs.30,000/- for a period of three years . Hence on 22-6-2002 FD bond No. KTD 20020286 for Rs. 40,000/- was issued by opposite party No.1 infavour of complainant for a period of three years and on remittance of the short amount of Rs.761/- for Rs.30,000/- on 24-6-2002 by the complainant , the opposite party No.1 issued another FD bond bearing No. KTD 20020285 on 24-6-2002 , but as the said fixed deposit amount therein being mentioned incorrectly as Rs.30,761/- instead of Rs.30,000/- and the said mistake being noticed on 26-6-2002 the opposite party No.1 concealed the said incorrect FD bond No. KTD 20020285 issuing fresh deposit receipt No. KTD 20020297 for Rs.30,000/- and retained it for delivery of it to the complainant on exchanging it with the incorrectly issued earlier FDR and the complainant did not respond inspite of request made by the opposite party to that effect in a post card and the loan on bond No.20020285 was sanctioned by the opposite party No.1 vide DL.No.20020197 in a routine manner in oversight of the mistake committed in issual of said FIR and its subsequent cancellation and on 4-4-2003 on clearance of the loan availed on said FDR.No. 20020285 the complainant was not only delivered with the said FDR in No. 20020285 but also the corrected FDR No. KTD 20020297 dated 26-2-2002 for Rs.30,000/- and the complainant insupression of said facts undue advantage of the rectified FDR 20020297 dated 26-2-2002 to have wrongful gain of the said FDR to which any cash of Rs.30,000/- was paid by him either on 25-6-2002 or on 27-6-2002 or any other date and so the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and so liable to be dismissed as creating any liability to the complainants claim.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A13 and the sworn affidavit of the complainant , the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 to B6 and the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No. 1.
5. Hence the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of the opposite parties and there by any of their liability to the complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is a post card said to have been received by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 . It reads as under
“ Inter Rate . Difference
Nee KTD 20020297 pai vishayamu gurinchi ventanay manager garini sampradincha galaru
Deposit receipt wrongly printed . submit your receipt and take fresh receipt” .
By postal impression on Ex.A1 it appears to have been posted on 21-12-2002 . If the FDR receipt No. KTD 20020285 was incorrectly issued for an amount of Rs. 30,761/- on 22-6-2002 and the FDR KTD No. 20020297 was prepared on 24-6-2002 in rectification of the defect occurred on FDR receipt No. 20020285 for the delivery of KTD. No. 20020297 for Rs.30,000/- , to the complainant in exchange of the alleged incorrect FDR KTD No. 20020285 mentioning the amount of Rs.30,761/- , there appears any cogency and bonafidees of the opposite party No.1 in addressing the above stated Ex.A1 post card more than 5 months after to said rectification and retention of the FDR No. 20020297 till 4-4-2003 i..e, till the discharge of loan availed by the complainant on KTD No. 20020285 and delivering the FDR Nos KTD 20020285 and 20020297 at a time on 4-4-2003 . If the receipt in FDR in KTD No. 20020285 was incorrectly issued for Rs. 30,761/- and the FDR in KTD 20020297 was really that one prepared for issual to the complainant in rectification of the incorrectness realized in the bond in KTD No. 20020285 and the complainant being not entitled to receive both the incorrect bond and bond issued in rectification of the earlier at a time there appears any cogency in the alleged conduct of the opposite party in returning both those FDR bonds to complainant on 4-4-2003 except for having an excuse for not placing the so called KTD No. 20020285 said to have been issued for an incorrect amount of Rs. 30,761/- . If there is any genuineness in the alleged reason of the opposite party No. 1 for issual of KTD 20020285 and KTD 20020297 the opposite party at least would not have delivered the KTD 20020297 at the time of discharge of loan availed by the complainant on KTD 20020285 to avoid double claims or would have not entertained the sanction of loan to complainant on said in correct FDR No. KTD 20020285 knowingly well of its incorrectness and its supercession by KTD 20020297 .
7. Hence the very conduct of the opposite party No.1 firstly in not bothering for more than 5 months after so called rectification of mistake committed in KTD 20020285 and preparation of KTD 20020297 in correction of the earlier FDR to address letter in Ex.A1 to the complainant requesting for submission of earlier incorrect FDR (KTD No. 20020285) in exchange to the corrected FDR (KTD.No.20020297) secondly the Ex.A1 being not alleging by its wording any mistaken issual of KTD No. 20020285 but only taking reference to FDR bearing KTD.No.20020297 thirdly the material in Ex.A2 and A3 are being admitted as the debit and credit advise relating to the loan availment and discharge under FDR bearing KTD No. 20020285 and if the FDR bearing 20020285 was not an acceptable one on account of some inherent defects and replaced with FDR bearing KTD No. 20020297 it would not have legally entertained the loan applied by the complainant on the FDR in KTD No. 20020285 is raising any amount of suspicion on the bonafidees of the defense taken by the opposite parties , especially when the contentions of the complainant is consistent all through in Ex.A4 , A6 , A7 , A11 and A13 and the response of the opposite parties and its Ombudsman appears to be mere eye washing in the Ex.A8 to A10 and A12 . If the complainant is not entitled to any amount under FDR in KTD.No. 20020285 and the FDR in KTD No. 20020297 was really issued in substitution of the earlier the opposite party No.1 would not have entertained the FDR in KTD No. 20020297 when was presented for its encashment on maturity without making in effective the FDR bond in KTD No. 20020285.
8. The opposite parties did neither place the FDR in KTD No. 20020285 in substantiation of the alleged incorrectness in its issue either as to the amount or as to interest nor it placed the FDR in KTD. No. 20020297 for observance and comparison with the farmer to feel that the latter was issued in rectification of any mistakes committed in earlier FDR bearing No. 20020285 . Hence the said contentions of the opposite party appears to be a plea for plea sake without any substantial substance there in .
9. There being any cogent action on the part of the opposite party No.1 as would have been there in case of issual of incorrect FDR and its rectification by fresh FDR and in recovering back the incorrectly issued FDR and there being any material to feel the justness in the said alleged theory of issuing the said two FDRs the recitals in Ex.B1 to B6 remains of any avail to the opposite party as the complainant is having any privy with them or knowledge of said unilateral canvassed material therein solely authored by the opposite parties .
10. The conduct of the opposite party No. 1 in paying the mature amount of FDR in KTD No. 20020297 without canceling the earlier so called in fructuous bond in KTD No. 20020285 is leading to an irresistible conclusion that the FDR in KTD. No. 20020285 and 20020297 were independent of each other as contended by the complainant and not one and the same in replacement of the other as alleged by the opposite party .
11. As the loan said to have been availed by the complainant on FDR in KTD No. 20020285 and its discharge appearing in Ex.A2 and A3 being admitted the genuineness of said FDR remains . There being any evidence as to the payment of maturity amount to the complainant on said FDR in KTD No. 20020285 and the claim of the complainant being for the same and there being any cogent record as to the possession of the FDR in KTD No. 20020285 still with complainant or any piece of evidence from the opposite party side is placed as to the delivery of said FDR to the complainant and its possession still with the complainant , in the circumstances , the deficiency of the opposite parties is appearing in not honoring the payment of its mature amount to the complainant inspite of demand in Ex.A13 . So the opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties 2 and 3 – its administrative controlling heads – are equally remaining liable for deficiency of service arising on account of non payment of mature amount of FDR KTD No. 20020285 to the complainant and there by they hold their joint and several liability to the claim of the complainant arising under matured FDR in KTD. No. 20020285 with a future interest at the contracted rate of interest till it satisfactory payment .
12. As the opposite parties by their deficient , non responsive and irresponsible conduct not only ensued mental agony to the complainant but also driven him to the forum for redressal of his just claim the opposite parties jointly and severally liable for payment of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant but also to an amount of Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case.
13. Consequently, the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 to 3 with joint and several liability to pay to the complainant the mature amount of FDR in KTD No. 20020285 with contracted rate of interest till satisfactory payment , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of this case within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally liable to pay supra stated award amount with 12 % interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 11th day of December, 2008.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Post card addressed to complainant.
Ex.A2. Debit advice dated 09-10-2002.
Ex.A3. Credit advice dated 4-4-2003.
Ex.A4. Letter dated 30-5-2007 addressed by complainant to OP.No.3.
Ex.A5. Letter dated 13-6-2007 addressed to complainant
Ex.A6. Letter dated 18-7-2007 of complainant to OP.No.3
Ex.A7. Letter dated 20-7-2007 of complainant to OP.No.3
Ex.A8. Letter Assistant Secretary of Ombudsman addressed to
Complainant .
Ex.A9. Letter dated 10-9-2007 addressed to complainant by
Ombudsman.
Ex.A10. Letter dated 22-10-2007 addressed to complainant to
Ombudsman.
Ex.A11. Reply dated 28-10-2007 of complainant to Ombudsman
along with cover receipts.
Ex.A12. Letter dated 7-12-2007 addressed to complainant by Ombudsman.
Ex.A13. Office copy of legal notice date 23-11-2007 along with
Postal receipts and three acknowledgements.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Leger view of A/c.No. KTD /01/20020285 of Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur Branch.
Ex.B2. Attested xerox copy of debit voucher dated 26-6-2002
for Rs.761/-.
Ex.B3. Attested xerox copy of debit voucher dated 26-6-2002
for Rs.30,000/-.
Ex.B4. Attested xerox copy intermediately credit voucher dated
26-6-2002 for Rs.30,000/-.
Ex.B5. Attested xerox copy of credit voucher dated 26-6-2002 for
transfer of Rs.30,000/- to KTD / 20020297.
Ex.B6. Ledger view of A/c. No.KTD/01/20020297 of Andhra Bank,
Nandikotkur Branch.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on
