Between:

Puvvadi Pullaiah, S/o Late P.Seshaiah, Agriculturist,

 R/o D.No.3-65-40, Sree Rama Nagar, Atmakur Village and Mandal – 518 422, Kurnool District.                                             

   …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

      1.  The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,  Atmakur Branch,

        D.No.1-87, K.G. Road, Beside Police Station, Atmakur – 518 422,

        Kurnool District.

   2.  The Regional Manager,         State Bank of India, Regional Business Office,

III Floor, Shop No.4 to 12,  U Con Plaza, Park Road,  Kurnool – 518 001.                    

                                ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.D.Y.Rama Moorthy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.V.V.Krishnama Raju, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                ORDER

(As per Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member President (FAC))                                                             C.C. No.62/2012

1.     This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite parties for the payment of:-

(a)          Fixed deposit maturity value under receipt TDA/45 368318 dated 26-02-2007 together with future interest there on at the contractual rate;

(b)          Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony;

(c)           Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case.

2.    The complaint in brief is that the complainant Puvvadi Pullaiah an agriculturist and resident of Atmakur is a customer of State Bank of India, Atmakur and holds a joint S.B. Account bearing No.11249805412 along with his wife.  He used to make fixed deposits in the said Bank represented by opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.2 is Regional Manager, S.B.I. Regional Office, Kurnool.  He made a fixed deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 26-02-2007 with opposite party No.1 Bank for a period of five years from 26-02-2007 to 26-02-2012 under the receipt No.TDA/45 368318.  All other fixed deposits that were made by the complainant with opposite party No.1 Bank were encashed after the surrender of Fixed Deposit receipt except this receipt.  The complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 28-02-2012 with fixed deposit receipt in dispute and another fixed deposit maturing on 28-02-2012 for encashment.  The complainant was told that fixed deposit maturing on 28-02-2012 would be paid refusing the encashment of No.TDA/45 368318 with maturity dated 26-02-2007.  Inspite of several oral requests and a written complainant on 07-03-2012, the complainant received no response from opposite party No.1. The complainant got a legal notice issued on 15-04-2012 with a demand to pay maturity value of the said fixed deposit.  Opposite party No.1 neither paid the money by encashing fixed deposit nor replied to the notice though he received.  Aggrieved by the attitude of opposite party No.1 this complaint is filed before this Forum attributing negligence on the part of opposite parties claiming appropriate reliefs.

3      The complainant filed sworn affidavit and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.

4.     In reply to the notice of this Forum opposite party No.1 filed counter denying his liability to complainants claim.  Opposite party No.2 filed a memo adopting written version of opposite party No.1.  According to opposite parties, a fixed deposit receipt No.TDR A/45/368378 was issued to the complainant after the deposit of Rs.20,000/- on 26-02-2007.  The period of deposit is five years from 26-02-2007 to 26-02-2012.  The complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- but not Rs.40,000/- for the issuance of two TDRS.No cash was deposited for issuance of TDR/45 368318. In a confused state of belief that TDR A/45 368378 was not received by the complainant TDR A/45 368318 was issued to him.  The complainant suppressed the fact of cancellation of TDR/45 368318.  He failed to produce voucher to show that he paid Rs.40,000/- on 26-02-2007 for issuance of the above said two TDRS.  For the reasons stated above opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

 5.    Opposite parties filed sworn affidavit.  No document marked on behalf of opposite parties. 

6.     Both parties filed their written arguments and made oral arguments submissions.

6.     Hence the points for consideration are:

                     i.        Whether the complainant made out a case against opposite parties to prove deficiency?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?

                  iii.        To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly opposite party No.1 issued a TDR A/45/368378 to the complainant for  a term of five years from 26-02-2007 to 26-02-2012 for which complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- on 26-02-2007.  The contention of complainant is that he made another fixed deposit of Rs.20,000/- with opposite party No.1 Bank on 26-02-2007 under the receipt No.TDA/45 368318 for a period of five years from 26-02-2007 to 26-02-2012. ExA1 Fixed Deposit Receipt in original.  When the complainant approached opposite party No.1 on 28-02-2012 to encash TDA/45 368318 opposite party No.1 refused it without any reason.  The complainant made several oral requests and finally a written complaint on 07-03-2012.  Ex.A2 photo copy of complainant’s complaint dated 07-03-2012.  As opposite party No.1 has not responded to the complaint of complainant, a legal notice was issued to opposite party No.1 on 15-04-2012.  Ex.A3 is copy of legal notice and Ex.A4 is acknowledgement from opposite party No.1. No action was initiated from opposite parties to solve the issue.  The complainant prayed a direction on opposite parties to pay the amount encashing the fixed deposit receipt. 

The contention of opposite parties is that complainant deposited Rs.20,000/- for which FDR A/45 368378 was issued.  In a confused state, assuming that FDR A/45 368378 was not received by the complainant a second FDR A/45 368318 was issued.  Later the mistake was identified and it was rectified by canceling FDR A/45 368318, which is lacking of evidence.  If the contention of opposite party No.1 is true he would have asked the complainant to surrender the cancelled FDR and FDR 368318 marked as Ex.A1, issued earlier shall bear an endorsement “Cancelled”.  Further the second FDR A/45 368378 substituted for misplaced one shall possess “DUPLICATE”.  FDR itself is a receipt for term deposit.  Opposite party no.1 asking the complainant to produce cash deposit voucher at this juncture of encashment can not absolve him from his responsibility.

8.     For the reasons stated above the contention of opposite party No.1 that the misplaced FDR – 368318 was substituted by second FDR – 388378 is not acceptable due to lack of evidence and opposite party No.1 himself asserted about his negligence by his process of functioning.  Therefore the complainant who owns the original FDR – 368318 Ex.A1 is entitled for encashment and to receive money duly surrendering it.

9.     The complainant claimed the maturity value of FDR bearing No.TDR A/45 368318 with future interest at contractual rate of 9.5% per annum.  The claim is reasonable and it is allowed.  The complainant is directed to surrender the original FDR Ex.A1 at the time of receiving money.  For causing mental agony by his willful silence Rs.5,000/- is granted.

10.    In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay maturity value of FDR together with future interest @ 9.5% per annum till the date of realization on production of original FDR bearing No.TDR A/45 368318.  Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as cost of the case are sanctioned.  Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 28^th day of June, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)

      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill           For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Fixed Deposit Receipt for Rs.20,000/- under Receipt

                No.TDA/45 368318 dated 26-02-2007 issued by

opposite party No.1.

Ex.A2                Office copy of Written Complaint dated 07-03-2012.

Ex.A3                Office copy of Legal Notice dated 15-04-2012.

Ex.A4                Postal Acknowledgement.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-  NILL

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)          

    // 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               :