Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 10th day of January, 2005
C.D.No. 20/2004
1. S.Rajasekhar, S/o. S.Srinivasa Rao,
H.No. 9/90, 1st road, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
2. S.Venkata Yamini, D/o. S. Srinivasa Rao
H. No. 9/90, 1st road, Both complainants are being Minors
Rep by their Natural Guardian Father
S. Srinivasa Rao,
H.No. 9/90, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool. . . . Complainants represented by
Their counsel Sri Sivaji Rao
-Vs-
The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank,
Park Road, Gandhi nagar, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri Syed Shafaqath Hussain
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainants is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986 seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay matured amount of Rs. 54,588/- with 10.5 % interest per annum, Rs.10,000/- as compensation to each complainant, cost of case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstance of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainants are minors represented by their natural guardian i.e their father S. Srinivasa Rao. On 11.12.1999, the father of the complainants deposited Rs.20,000/- each under fixed deposit in the name of the complainants, bearing fixed deposit No MSP-TDR-97 No 547418 and MSP-TDR-97 No. 547419 respectively. Both the fixed deposits term is 36 months and the maturity date i.e 11.12.2002. The total maturity amount on each deposit is Rs.27, 294/- . Before expiry of the maturity date the complainants father approached the opposite parties to with draw the fixed deposit amounts to meet the educational expenditure of the complainants. But the opposite parties refused to grant permission to with draw pre mature fixed deposit amounts. On 22.2.2002 the complainant got issued legal notice demanding to permit the pre mature withdrawal of fixed deposit amount, to which there was no reply and nor allowed the complainant to with draw the fixed deposit amounts. Mean while on 11.12.2002 both the fixed deposits are matured and even after maturity the opposite party refused to return the matured amount. The refusal of the opposite party in paying the maturity amount to the complainants is held deficiency of service to the complainants.
4. In substantiation of their case the complainants relied on the following documents Viz (1) term deposit receipt No.MSP -TDR/ 97 No. 547418 issued by opposite party in favour Srungarapu Rajashekar for Rs.27,294/- (2) term deposit receipt No. MSP-TDR/97 No. 547419 issued by opposite party in favour of Srungarau Venkata Yamini for Rs.27,294/- and (3) broucher regarding PMRY Scheme (Coloum No. 9), besides to his sworn affidavit in reiteration of his complaint avernments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.3 for its appreciation in this case and caused interrogatories to the opposite party and suitable reply to the interrogatories filed by the oppose party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this case of the complainant the opposite party made its appearance through its standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial written version, it questions the maintainability of the complainants case either in law or on facts.
6. The written version of opposite party admits the father of complainants 1 and 2 deposited Rs.20,000/ - each in their bank under fixed deposits for 36 months and the of maturity dt 11.12.2002 and denies the other allegation made in the complaint. It further submits that the father of the complainants suppressed one important aspects of this case i.e after making the above mentioned deposits, on 13.12.1999 the father of the complainants obtained PMRY loan in A/c No. 8/99 for Rs. 95,000/- in the name of his wife T. Pramila for plastic bags business. At the time of obtaining the said loan it was mutually aggrieved that the said deposits made by the complainant in the name of his minor children the opposite party bank can exercise a right of lien on the fixed deposits and the opposite party sanctioned the PMRY loan in the name of the mother of the complainants.
7. As per the terms and conditions of the PMRY loan granted to the mother of the complainants she has to pay EMI of Rs. 2,300/- , but as against to it a sum of Rs. 500/- only being paid regularly inspite of repeated requests by the opposite party bank. The said PMRY loan account has become NPA. Therefore, the opposite party has a right of lien over the deposits of the complainants herein. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what reliefs the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party?:-
9.There is no dispute as to the fixed deposit of Rs. 20,000/- each by complainant in the name of his two minor children vide Ex A.1 and A.2. The Ex A.1 is the term deposit receipt envisages the deposit of Rs.20,000/- by the complainant in the name of his minor son Srungarapu Rajasekhar on 11.12.1999 for 36 months at a stipulated rate of interest of 10.5 % interest payable on maturity on 11.12.2002 as Rs. 27,294/-. The Ex A.2 is the term deposit receipt envisages the deposit of Rs.20,000/- by the complainant in the name of his minor daughter Srungarapu VenkataYamini on 11.12.1999 for 36 months at a stipulated rate of 10.5 % interest payable on maturity on 11.12.2002 as Rs. 27,294/-.
10. It is a categorical case of the complainant that on maturity the said fixed deposit amount of Rs.27,294/-each was not paid to him inspite of several approach and requests. But as against to it the opposite parties in their written version averments in para 2 submits that the complainant suppressed an important aspects of this case, after making the said fixed deposits with opposite party the complainant has obtained a PMRY loan A/c No. 8/99 for Rs. 95,000/- in the name of his wife Mrs T.Pramila for plastic bags business. At the time of obtaining the said loan the complainant agreed with the opposite party that it can exercise a right of lien on the said fixed deposits made by the complainant in the name of his minor children and thereafter, the opposite party bank sanctioned the PMRY loan in the name of the mother of the complainant and noted lien on this two deposits. In the absence of any cogent substance in support of the supra stated contentions of the opposite party and as in the Ex A.1 and A.2 there is no endorsement as to the right of lien as averred by the opposite party in their written version avernemtns. Hence, the said statement of the opposite party on this aspect not only remains highly in consistence but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies in that regard.
11. The Ex A.3 is the proforma of family income certificate which is included in the broucher of PMRY scheme. It is not remaining essential to go deep into the merits of the above said exhibit as it is a mere un complete proforma.
12. The opposite party except alleging the defaultive and non co-portative conduct of the complainant in submitting the said FDRs to the opposite party bank for realization of the maturity amounts of the said FDRs did not substantive their bonafidies and malafidies of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting and corroborative material.
13. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following judgement of National Consumer Disputes redressal Commission, New Delhi, between Union Bank of India Vs Ajaib Kumar reported in 2003 (5) CLD page 71, where in, it was held that FDR in question was not kept under lien and directed the petitioner to pay the maturity amount with interest
14. From the indisputable evidence of Ex A.1 and A.2 and following the above mentioned judgement, the complainant is entitle to the maturity amount of Rs. 27,294/- each as stipulated there in on the date of maturity and in the light of Ex A.3 there appears any lien on the said FDRs as alleged by the opposite party. Therefore, the opposite party cannot escape its liability to make good of the matured amount of Rs. 27,294/- each on the date of maturity its self to the complainant. But the complainant did not place any material as to when he submitted the said FDRs with the opposite party bank for realization of maturity amount of the said FDRs. Hence, the complainant is entitled to interest only from the date of filing of this case.
15. In the circumstances discussed above, as there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party in not paying the maturity amount to the complainant and taking shelter under right of lien over the said FDRs and not keeping up its promise in payment of the maturity amount on maturity date. The complainant is certainly remaining entitle to the maturity amount.
16. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs. 27,294/- each under two term deposit receipts with 6% interest from the date of filing of this case till realization along with Rs. 500/- as costs of this case within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation correct by us pronounced in the open court this the 10th day of January, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
