The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Lingasugur, dist: Raichur. V/S Sri. H. Sangappa Bayyapur S/o. Hanumanthappa - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

CC/09/88

Sri. H. Sangappa Bayyapur S/o. Hanumanthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Lingasugur, dist: Raichur. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. T.M. Swamy

31 Mar 2010

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/88

Sri. H. Sangappa Bayyapur S/o. Hanumanthappa						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Lingasugur, dist: Raichur.						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sri. H. Sangappa against Respondent the Branch Manager State Bank of Hyderabad Branch Lingasugur,. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is the customer of Respondent Bank holding S.B. A/c. No. 52164517414 since long time for receiving his salary and for pension amount from the date of retirement. The one Khajabee who was working in a school at where complainant was working as a peon, has availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Respondent Bank probably in the month of May-2003 by offering documents pertaining to her salary and other property documents as a security and apart from that, then Manager also got signature of complainant as a surety/guarantor to the said loan. The borrower Khajabee was died on 31-03-04 and complainant retired from service in the month of September 2006. The complainant has kept his entire gratuity and PF amounts etc., in his S.B. Account with Respondent Bank for safety of his future life. Subsequent to death of Khajabee i.e, borrower, the Respondent Bank has paid entire her death benefit amounts to daughter/nominee by name Smt. Mamtaza. It is further case of the complainant that, the Respondent Bank instead of recovering the loan amount of late Khajabee during the life time from her salary or by any other sources, and from the salary of the daughter of the deceased Khajabee or deducting out of the entire benefit amount released to her from the death benefits of her mother, then Manager of the Respondent Bank had not taking any recovery steps and straightaway deducting the amount of Rs. 45,084/- on 11-07-08 without any prior notice from complainant pension amount lying in Respondents S.B. Account is totally negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and it is also against the law of the land. Hence he has sought for the relief of refund of Rs. 45,084/- which has been deducted from the S.B. A/c. of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 11-07-08 and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the litigation. 2. The Respondent appeared through counsel and filed his written version as under:- The Respondent in his written version contending that, the Respondent Bank cannot recover the loan amount from Smt. Mamtaza for the reasons she is not concerned with the loan of Khajabee. The bank officials made continuous efforts to recover loan of Khajabee and also requested complainant to clear the loan of Khajabee, but their efforts went in vain. Since the complainant is a guarantor for the loan of Khajabee and he has given undertaking letter to the Bank as he would repay the loan of Khajabee in the event of her default in repayment of the loan, hence loan amount was recovered from the complainant and it is in accordance with the provisions of law and agreement between the parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank. So the Respondent sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn affidavit of Aravinda Puroshottam Rao Kulkarni, the Branch Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1. The complainant has got marked (5) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-5. In-rebuttal the Respondent has got marked (12) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-12. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that, the complainant Sangappa Bayyapur is the customer of Respondent Bank having S.B. Account No. 52164517414 and he worked as Head Master in Amareshwara Girls High School, Lingasugur in the year 2003 till the relevant years of this case. 7. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant while working as a Head Master of the said school executed guarantee deed dt. 17-05-03 i.e, Ex.R-2 and a letter of undertaking dt. 16-05-03 i.e, Ex.R-4 to the Respondent Bank and on the basis of the said two documents his staff by name Khajabee obtained loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite bank and while in service, the borrower Khajabee was died. It is further undisputed fact that, service benefits of deceased Khajabee have been paid to her nominee/daughter by name one Mamtaza by the complainant through Respondent Bank. 8. Further it is undisputed fact that, Respondent Bank has deducted loan amount of Rs. 45,084/- of Khajabee from the balance available in the S.B. Account of complainant. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,60,511/- and an amount of Rs. 2,16,145/- vide Government Cheques dt. 29-12-06 under Ex.P-2(1) & Ex.P-2 respectively. 9. On close perusal of Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-4 i.e, deed of guarantee dt. 17-05-03 and Ex.R-4 letter of under taking dt. 1-05-03, it appears that, the complainant himself has executed the same in favour of the deceased Khajabee. Ex.R-2 stands in the personal name of complainant it means that it has been executed on his personal capacity even though Ex.R-4 appears to be executed in the official capacity. The deceased Khajabee has taken loan from the Respondent Bank through Ex.R-1 on his personal capacity and for that, the complainant stood surety/guarantor on his personal capacity as per Ex.R-2. The opposite bank has sanctioned loan on his guarantee, under such circumstances, no doubt that, the complainant is jointly and severally liable for the un cleared loan amount due to the Respondent Bank, this liability in turn will give rights to recover the due from guarantor accordingly the Respondent Bank has recovered the said dues from the complainant, so we do not find any illegality by the Respondent Bank. 10. It is the case of the complainant that, without recovering the due amount from Khajabee during her life time and even after her death, from her legal heirs the Respondent Bank has recovered the due from his account and thereby the Respondent Bank committed illegality etc., But we do not find any reasons to believe that, the Respondent Bank has committed any illegality. Because from the close perusal of Ex.R-5 letter dt. 04-07-03 issued by the present Head Master of the Amareshwara High School, Lingasugur it is noticed that, the complainant himself deposited all the death benefits of Khajabee to her account. He being a head master, he has got every right to recover the loans, but he himself has disbursed the death benefits to the nominee of the late Khajabee. He was the man who stood as guarantor and also undertaken to repay the loan amount, there were no reasons to believe that, why he has not made any efforts to deduct the un cleared loan amount and settle the account. If he would have deducted the same, he could have cleared the loan on that day itself and he will be free from his responsibility, but he has not done so. This act of the complainant itself would go to show that, he himself has neglected the things, for that he cannot blame the Respondent Bank. In the light of these circumstances, we do not find any reasons to hold that, the case of the complaint against the Respondent Bank is proper one. 11. The complainant in his complaint strongly urged two main points one is regarding attachment of the amount from his S.B. A/c and another one is recovered loan is as time barred. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued on these points. No we have to see the justification regarding the contentions of the complainant. First contention of the complainant is the PF and gratuity amount under cheque vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 deposited in his S.B. A/c are arises out of the retirement benefits i.e, service benefits and same should not be attached. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon the two rulings cited in (IV) (2008) CPJ 58 NC and AIR 2009 Supreme Court 930. Now, the question before us is that, whether opposite Bank was right in deducting the loan amount of Khajabee from the amount outstanding in S.B. account of complainant. From the perusal of Ex.R-3 statement of account of complainant from 01-09-06 to 08-07-09, it appears that, the complainant done number of transactions in the said account since from 01-09-06 to 08-07-09 and it also discloses that, various debits and credit entries and balances apart from the service benefits amount deposited under Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1). Further the said document discloses that, the service benefits of the complainant under Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1) to the tune of Rs. 1,60,511/- and Rs. 2,16,145/- respectively have been credited to the account of the complainant on 30-12-06, after that on the same day the balance amount with the complainant account was Rs. 4,00,280/- and on 31-12-06 the total balance left with the complainant account was Rs. 4,00,316.73/-. Further the said document discloses that, on 11-07-08 the Respondent Bank has debited the amount of Rs. 45,084/- from the account of the complainant. That amount has been deducted for the purpose of Khajabees personal loan. That as on 11-07-08 the total balance in S.B. Account of the complainant is Rs. 71,700/- and odd and out of which Rs. 50,584/- has been deducted and balance remained is Rs. 26,616/- and odd. From these entries it is very clear that, the complainant in his S.B. Account he was not only having the amount arrived out of the service benefits but he was having some other amount of his own also. Further lots of transactions have been held in his account; therefore it has lost its identity as to whether deducted amount is PF amount or retirement benefits. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that, the Respondent Bank has deducted the amount from the service benefits and further we hold that the same can be attached one. Under the above said circumstances and facts, the rulings referred by the complainant are not made applicable to the case of complainant with great to their lordships. The second contention of the complainant is that, loan sanction to Khajabee was in the year 2003 but amount deducted from the S.B Account of the complainant was in the year 2008 that is time barred and cannot be recovered. Mere from pleadings of the parties we cannot decide whether it is a time barred debt or not. It requires appreciation of various transactions made in the account of late Khajabee which are not before us. Hence this contention is not considered. 12. The Respondent Bank has made several efforts to recover the dues from the complainant before deducting the amount from the account in this regard the Respondent Bank has made postal correspondence and produced postal covers and letters under Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-12. Some of the postal covers under Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-12 un served, returned covers are clearly speaks that they have been returned un served because of refusal by the complainant. Under such circumstances with no alternative to go as per the Ex.R-2 letter of guarantees Para- 14, the Respondent Bank has come to the conclusion that intimations deemed to have been served on the complainant and deducted the amount from the account of the complainant. In that event it cannot be said that the bank has deducted the amount without any intimation to the complainant and the allegation of the complainant in this regard holds no water. 13. Under the above said circumstances and viewing from the all angles we do not find any reasons to believe that, the Respondent Bank has illegally deducted the amount from the complainant S.B. Account out of his service benefits and thereby it has caused deficiency in service by it and for which the Respondent Bank is liable to repay the deducted amount of Rs. 45,084/- from the account of the complainant on 11-07-08, so Point No-1 is answered in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In view of our finding on point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, so point No-2 is answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-03-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Sri. H. Sangappa against Respondent the Branch Manager State Bank of Hyderabad Branch Lingasugur,. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:- Complainant is the customer of Respondent Bank holding S.B. A/c. No. 52164517414 since long time for receiving his salary and for pension amount from the date of retirement. The one Khajabee who was working in a school at where complainant was working as a peon, has availed loan of Rs. 50,000/- from Respondent Bank probably in the month of May-2003 by offering documents pertaining to her salary and other property documents as a security and apart from that, then Manager also got signature of complainant as a surety/guarantor to the said loan. The borrower Khajabee was died on 31-03-04 and complainant retired from service in the month of September 2006. The complainant has kept his entire gratuity and PF amounts etc., in his S.B. Account with Respondent Bank for safety of his future life. Subsequent to death of Khajabee i.e, borrower, the Respondent Bank has paid entire her death benefit amounts to daughter/nominee by name Smt. Mamtaza. It is further case of the complainant that, the Respondent Bank instead of recovering the loan amount of late Khajabee during the life time from her salary or by any other sources, and from the salary of the daughter of the deceased Khajabee or deducting out of the entire benefit amount released to her from the death benefits of her mother, then Manager of the Respondent Bank had not taking any recovery steps and straightaway deducting the amount of Rs. 45,084/- on 11-07-08 without any prior notice from complainant pension amount lying in Respondents S.B. Account is totally negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent and it is also against the law of the land. Hence he has sought for the relief of refund of Rs. 45,084/- which has been deducted from the S.B. A/c. of the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 11-07-08 and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of the litigation. 2. The Respondent appeared through counsel and filed his written version as under:- The Respondent in his written version contending that, the Respondent Bank cannot recover the loan amount from Smt. Mamtaza for the reasons she is not concerned with the loan of Khajabee. The bank officials made continuous efforts to recover loan of Khajabee and also requested complainant to clear the loan of Khajabee, but their efforts went in vain. Since the complainant is a guarantor for the loan of Khajabee and he has given undertaking letter to the Bank as he would repay the loan of Khajabee in the event of her default in repayment of the loan, hence loan amount was recovered from the complainant and it is in accordance with the provisions of law and agreement between the parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent Bank. So the Respondent sought for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary cost. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief. In rebuttal the Respondent has filed sworn affidavit of Aravinda Puroshottam Rao Kulkarni, the Branch Manager of Respondent Bank as RW-1. The complainant has got marked (5) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-5. In-rebuttal the Respondent has got marked (12) documents at Ex.R-1 to R-12. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Negative. 2. As per final order for the following. REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. There is no dispute that, the complainant Sangappa Bayyapur is the customer of Respondent Bank having S.B. Account No. 52164517414 and he worked as Head Master in Amareshwara Girls High School, Lingasugur in the year 2003 till the relevant years of this case. 7. It is undisputed fact that, the complainant while working as a Head Master of the said school executed guarantee deed dt. 17-05-03 i.e, Ex.R-2 and a letter of undertaking dt. 16-05-03 i.e, Ex.R-4 to the Respondent Bank and on the basis of the said two documents his staff by name Khajabee obtained loan amount of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite bank and while in service, the borrower Khajabee was died. It is further undisputed fact that, service benefits of deceased Khajabee have been paid to her nominee/daughter by name one Mamtaza by the complainant through Respondent Bank. 8. Further it is undisputed fact that, Respondent Bank has deducted loan amount of Rs. 45,084/- of Khajabee from the balance available in the S.B. Account of complainant. It is also not in dispute that, the complainant has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,60,511/- and an amount of Rs. 2,16,145/- vide Government Cheques dt. 29-12-06 under Ex.P-2(1) & Ex.P-2 respectively. 9. On close perusal of Ex.R-2 and Ex.R-4 i.e, deed of guarantee dt. 17-05-03 and Ex.R-4 letter of under taking dt. 1-05-03, it appears that, the complainant himself has executed the same in favour of the deceased Khajabee. Ex.R-2 stands in the personal name of complainant it means that it has been executed on his personal capacity even though Ex.R-4 appears to be executed in the official capacity. The deceased Khajabee has taken loan from the Respondent Bank through Ex.R-1 on his personal capacity and for that, the complainant stood surety/guarantor on his personal capacity as per Ex.R-2. The opposite bank has sanctioned loan on his guarantee, under such circumstances, no doubt that, the complainant is jointly and severally liable for the un cleared loan amount due to the Respondent Bank, this liability in turn will give rights to recover the due from guarantor accordingly the Respondent Bank has recovered the said dues from the complainant, so we do not find any illegality by the Respondent Bank. 10. It is the case of the complainant that, without recovering the due amount from Khajabee during her life time and even after her death, from her legal heirs the Respondent Bank has recovered the due from his account and thereby the Respondent Bank committed illegality etc., But we do not find any reasons to believe that, the Respondent Bank has committed any illegality. Because from the close perusal of Ex.R-5 letter dt. 04-07-03 issued by the present Head Master of the Amareshwara High School, Lingasugur it is noticed that, the complainant himself deposited all the death benefits of Khajabee to her account. He being a head master, he has got every right to recover the loans, but he himself has disbursed the death benefits to the nominee of the late Khajabee. He was the man who stood as guarantor and also undertaken to repay the loan amount, there were no reasons to believe that, why he has not made any efforts to deduct the un cleared loan amount and settle the account. If he would have deducted the same, he could have cleared the loan on that day itself and he will be free from his responsibility, but he has not done so. This act of the complainant itself would go to show that, he himself has neglected the things, for that he cannot blame the Respondent Bank. In the light of these circumstances, we do not find any reasons to hold that, the case of the complaint against the Respondent Bank is proper one. 11. The complainant in his complaint strongly urged two main points one is regarding attachment of the amount from his S.B. A/c and another one is recovered loan is as time barred. The counsel for the complainant vehemently argued on these points. No we have to see the justification regarding the contentions of the complainant. First contention of the complainant is the PF and gratuity amount under cheque vide Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 deposited in his S.B. A/c are arises out of the retirement benefits i.e, service benefits and same should not be attached. In this regard, the counsel for the complainant has relied upon the two rulings cited in (IV) (2008) CPJ 58 NC and AIR 2009 Supreme Court 930. Now, the question before us is that, whether opposite Bank was right in deducting the loan amount of Khajabee from the amount outstanding in S.B. account of complainant. From the perusal of Ex.R-3 statement of account of complainant from 01-09-06 to 08-07-09, it appears that, the complainant done number of transactions in the said account since from 01-09-06 to 08-07-09 and it also discloses that, various debits and credit entries and balances apart from the service benefits amount deposited under Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1). Further the said document discloses that, the service benefits of the complainant under Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-2(1) to the tune of Rs. 1,60,511/- and Rs. 2,16,145/- respectively have been credited to the account of the complainant on 30-12-06, after that on the same day the balance amount with the complainant account was Rs. 4,00,280/- and on 31-12-06 the total balance left with the complainant account was Rs. 4,00,316.73/-. Further the said document discloses that, on 11-07-08 the Respondent Bank has debited the amount of Rs. 45,084/- from the account of the complainant. That amount has been deducted for the purpose of Khajabees personal loan. That as on 11-07-08 the total balance in S.B. Account of the complainant is Rs. 71,700/- and odd and out of which Rs. 50,584/- has been deducted and balance remained is Rs. 26,616/- and odd. From these entries it is very clear that, the complainant in his S.B. Account he was not only having the amount arrived out of the service benefits but he was having some other amount of his own also. Further lots of transactions have been held in his account; therefore it has lost its identity as to whether deducted amount is PF amount or retirement benefits. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that, the Respondent Bank has deducted the amount from the service benefits and further we hold that the same can be attached one. Under the above said circumstances and facts, the rulings referred by the complainant are not made applicable to the case of complainant with great to their lordships. The second contention of the complainant is that, loan sanction to Khajabee was in the year 2003 but amount deducted from the S.B Account of the complainant was in the year 2008 that is time barred and cannot be recovered. Mere from pleadings of the parties we cannot decide whether it is a time barred debt or not. It requires appreciation of various transactions made in the account of late Khajabee which are not before us. Hence this contention is not considered. 12. The Respondent Bank has made several efforts to recover the dues from the complainant before deducting the amount from the account in this regard the Respondent Bank has made postal correspondence and produced postal covers and letters under Ex.R-7 to Ex.R-12. Some of the postal covers under Ex.R-10 and Ex.R-12 un served, returned covers are clearly speaks that they have been returned un served because of refusal by the complainant. Under such circumstances with no alternative to go as per the Ex.R-2 letter of guarantees Para- 14, the Respondent Bank has come to the conclusion that intimations deemed to have been served on the complainant and deducted the amount from the account of the complainant. In that event it cannot be said that the bank has deducted the amount without any intimation to the complainant and the allegation of the complainant in this regard holds no water. 13. Under the above said circumstances and viewing from the all angles we do not find any reasons to believe that, the Respondent Bank has illegally deducted the amount from the complainant S.B. Account out of his service benefits and thereby it has caused deficiency in service by it and for which the Respondent Bank is liable to repay the deducted amount of Rs. 45,084/- from the account of the complainant on 11-07-08, so Point No-1 is answered in Negative. POINT NO.2:- 14. In view of our finding on point No-1, the complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, so point No-2 is answered in Negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. No order as to cost. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-03-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.