BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B. Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 3rd day of January, 2006.
C.C.No.154/2005
P.Kistamma, W/o Late.P.Sreenivasa Reddy, Aged 60 years, Hindu,
Property holder,
R/o Devarabanda Village, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank,
Devarabanda Branch, Pathikonda Mandal, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 29.12.2005 for arguments in the presence of Sri K.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri G.I.Ahmed, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration, till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay her maturity fixed deposit amount of Rs.68,925/- with 18% interest per annum till realization, Rs.30,000/- towards compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant and her son P.Madhusudhana Reddy jointly deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- in November 2000 in the fixed deposit of opposite party’s Bank under Vikas Cash Certificate bearing No.493451 for a period of 39 months, the said certificate was matured on 21-2-2004. After maturity, the complainant approached the opposite party for payment of matured amount, but the opposite party did not pay the matured amount inspite of several requests. Being vexed the complainant got issued legal notice dated 10-6-2005 to the opposite party demanding the payment of maturity amount, the opposite parties did neither paid the maturity amount nor replied to the said notice. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite party constrained the complainant to resort to the Forum for redressal of the claims as prayed in the complaint.
3. In pursuance of her case the complainant relied on the following documents viz (1) Vikas Cash Certificate issued by the Syndicate Bank, account No.-1534 dated 21-11-2000 for Rs.50,000/- (2) Legal notice issued by the complainant’s counsel to opposite party bank dated 10-6-2005 and (3) Postal acknowledgment as to the receipt of Ex.A2 by opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of her complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant suitablely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite party and caused interrogatories to the opposite party.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel before this Forum and contested the case by filing denial written version.
5. The written version of opposite parties questions the maintainability of complainant’s case either in law or on facts and denies all averments made by the complainant in her complaint averments and submits that the complainant’s son P.Madhusudhana Reddy took loan for Rs.95,000/- under PMRY scheme OSL PMRY-7/1995, the said loan became NPA due to non payment of installments. On 27-2-2004 the complainant’s son paid an amount of Rs.6,910/- towards his loan amount and requested the opposite party to adjust the FD amount stands on his name and her mother name to the loan account. The opposite party there after on 27-2-2004 adjusted the FD amount to the loan account by the then Branch Manager as per the instructions of the complainant’s son. Still there was a balance of Rs.11,934/- due to the said loan for which the complainant’s son gave a letter to the opposite party to write off the balance due amount to the said loan.
6. The above facts were cancealed and suppressed by the complainant and filed this vexatious complaint before this Forum for wrongful gain and the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, as the FD stands jointly in the name of the complainant and P.Madhusudhana Reddy and the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. P.Madhusudhana Reddy and alleges that there is no deficiency of service on their part and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on the following document viz. (1) Attested Xerox copy of letter dated 29-4-2005 of P.Madhusudhana Reddy addressed to opposite party, besides to the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version and the above document is marked as Ex.B1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by complainant and caused interrogatories to the complainant.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party?:
9. There is no dispute as to the fixed deposit of complainant and her son P.Madhusudhana Reddy under Vikas Cash Certificate with opposite party bank on 21-11-2000. The said deposit was matured on 21-2-2004 and the complainant and her son either of the survivor are entitled to the matured amount of Rs.68,925/-, on approach to the opposite party bank by the complainant for matured amount the opposite party refused to pay. But the written version of opposite party in para-9 alleges that the complainant’s son P.Madhusudhana Reddy took a loan under PMRY scheme for Rs.95,000/- in the year 1995 and the said loan became NPA due to non payment. As per the instructions of the complainant’s son vide Ex.B1 the opposite party on 27-2-2004 adjusted the said F.D amount to the loan account of the complainant’s son by the then Branch Manager.
10. The opposite party’s side relied on Ex.B1, the Ex.B1 is the attested Xerox copy of letter dated 29-4-2005 of P.Madhusudhan Reddy addressed to opposite party, it envisages that he availed PMRY loan for Rs.95,000/- in the year 1995 and was defaulter in the year 1998. There after on 27-2-2004 he requested the opposite party Branch Manager to adjust his mother’s FD amount of Rs.75,835/- to his loan account and for the remaining amount of Rs.15,465/- he requested the opposite party Bank to write off. But in the Ex.A1 the maturity amount is for Rs.68,925/- and not Rs.75,835/- as mentioned in the Ex.B1 and there is no reference of Ex.A1 particulars in Ex.B1. Therefore, what appears is that the FD referred in Ex.B1 must be some other FD, as the matured amount is not tallying and there is no reference number of Ex.A1 in Ex.B1. Hence, the adjustment of Rs.75,835/- mentioned in Ex.B1 cannot be that of Ex.A1 matured amount. Hence, no credence can be given to Ex.B1.
11. The complainant in support of her case relied on Ex.A1 i.e. the original FD receipt on which her case rests, from the perusal said Ex.A1 it appears that it has not been submitted to the opposite party by the complainant duly discharging it, for payment of matured amount. Till the complainant submits a duly discharged FD the opposite party is not remaining liable to pay the matured amount. As the alleged adjustment of loan amount by the opposite party bank on the Ex.A1 FD of the complainant for the loan alleged to have been availed by P.Madhusudhana Reddy being not believed as per the discussion made in supra paras. The opposite party is directed to pay the matured amount immediately after the surrender of Ex.A1 by the complainant duly discharging it, seeking payment of the matured amount due under said Ex.A1. In default of said compliance by the opposite party on such surrender of Ex.A1 as directed above the opposite party shall be liable to pay the matured amount of Ex.A1 with 18% interest per annum till realization.
12. The opposite party alleges that the complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint, in this case the complaint is filed by the first depositor who is first entitled to the said maturity amount, and the Ex.A1 FD says that the maturity amount is payable to either of the survivor. Hence, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled to the matured amount and there is no necessity for the complainant to join the second depositor of the said FD as complainant No.2 in the present complaint.
13. The complainant in support of her case relied on the following citations: (1) Sanjay Kumar Ahuja V/s Shanta Rani & Ors. (NCDRC) reported in I (2003) CPJ page 113, wherein, it was held that when deposited amount is not refunded after maturity, the opposite party has to pay maturity amount with interest. (2) Prabhu Lingayya Hanagodimath & Ors. V/s K.V.N.Rajasekhar reported in II (2003) CPJ page 117 (NCDRC), wherein, the fixed deposit maturity amount was not paid, deficiency in service proved, opposite parties are liable to pay maturity amount with 18% interest and (3) Bagampriyal Finance & Ors. V/s J.Suganya & Ors. Reported in III (2003) CPJ page 616, (TNSCDRC), wherein Fixed Deposit maturity amount was not paid after maturity, the opposite party was held liable to pay maturity amount with 12% interest per annum. To sum up the above discussions and following the afore mentioned citations, the complainant is certainly entitle to receive matured amount under Ex.A1.
14. As the Ex.A1 being not submitted to opposite party duly discharging it creating any liability on opposite party for the payment amount due there under. There appears any justifiability in the claim for mental agony and costs. Consequently the said claims are rejected.
15. In the result of the above discussion the complaint is allowed with directions mentioned in para No.11 without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the Open Court this the 3rd day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Original Vikas Cash Certificate A/c No.1534, Dt.21-11-2000.
Amount of Rs.50,000/-
Ex.A2 Legal notice, Dt.10-6-2005 complainant counsel to opposite party
Ex.A3 Postal Acknowledgement
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party:
Ex.B1 Attested copy of letter Dt. 29-4-2005 addressed by
P.Madhusudhana Reddy to opposite party.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri. K.Lokeswara Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
2. Sri. G.I.Ahmed, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
