This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 20-05-2014 in the presence of Sri P.V.Ramana, advocate for complainant and Smt. G.Sudhamadhuri, Advocate for  opposite party, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Smt. T.SUNEETHA , MEMBER

            The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking directions on the opposite party to pay the F.D.R. amount of Rs.30,000/- along with interest @10% p.a from         29-07-85 to 04-12-13 and compensation for mental agony and legal expenses of Rs.1,25,000/-

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

          The complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- on 29-07-85 with the opposite party under receipt No.80/I/175801/494/85.  After depositing the complainant went to U.S.A. and she did not withdraw the said amount by surrendering the deposit form with the opposite party as the complainant is unable to come down to Guntur.  The complainant came to India and on 04-03-13 and submitted a letter seeking the F.D.R. amount along with Xerox copy of said F.D.R. as per advice the Branch Manager of the said Bank/opposite party. The Branch Manager stated that they will inform soon.   But there was no response.  The complainant issued a regd.legal notice 14-08-13 regarding this matter to the opposite party for which the opposite party sent a reply notice dated 19-08-13 stating that they have taken the matter to the Accounts Department of the Central Office for verification of the un claimed balance.  They further stated that complainant might have withdrawn the said amount long back and advised her to verify her records.  The complainant cannot withdraw the amount without surrendering the F.D. receipt to the opposite party.  The F.D. receipt is lying with the complainant her self.  No banker would release the F.D. amount without receiving the F.D. receipt.  At the time of depositing of the amount by the complainant all the records were maintained manually.  If they could not be traced it shows the carelessness, negligent attitude of the opposite party which amounts to deficiency of service on their part.  Due to this attitude the complainant suffered severe mental agony.  Thus  the complaint.         

3.      Version filed by the opposite party which is in brief as follows:

          The complainant came to the opposite party on 23-12-11 with the copy of F.D.R.  The opposite party verified the same in the Branch and took the matter to the Central Office for verification of the unclaimed balances if any.  They verified and replied on 29-12-11 that there is no outstanding amount in the unclaimed balance account at their end.  This opposite party informed the same to the complainant and requested to verify her records whether she took the amount without submitting the F.D.R. as one can obtain the same by producing the affidavit.  After that the complainant came to the Bank on 04-03-13 and gave representation.  Bank informed about the lack of record about the complainant’s F.D.R.  The complainant after five months got issued a notice on 14-08-13 claiming the F.D.R.amount.

        As per the procedure the unclaimed deposit amounts will be kept in bank for five years thereafter would be shifted to Central Office which inturn send the amount to the Government after some time.  The complainant did not ask for the renewal of the F.D.R.  Inordinate delay in claiming the F.D.R., is a reason to show that the complainant has taken the proceeds long back.  The opposite party has no enmity on the complainant.  If the complainant her self filed the same the true facts will come to light i.e., during the 25 years gap how many times she came to India and so on.  In order to put the said facts under dark G.P.A. is given to her counsel himself to file the case. The complaint may be dismissed .

4.      The complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the complainant and   Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

1. To what relief?

6.      POINT NO.1:-   The allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party is not releasing the complaint’s unclaimed F.D.R. amount  deposited  on 29-07-85.  The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant’s FDR is of 25 years back and could not find the complainant’s amount in the records on verification with the account section of the central office and further opined that the complainant might have taken the amount without producing the original  as  one can take the amount by producing the affidavit .  

        The complainant has deposited Rs.30,000 in  Reinvestment Deposit Plan  on 29-07-1985  interest payable @ 10% p.a. repayable after 36 months, under No. 175801/494/85, ledger folio No.11/120 with maturity value of Rs.40,350/- (as per Ex.A-2 & Ex.B-2).

        The opposite party did not file any document/affidavit   to prove the withdrawal of the complainant’s amount by the complainant .The opposite party ought to have  produced  the affidavit submitted by the complainant which was not done by the opposite party.

        From the above circumstance, it can be inferred that the complainant did not withdraw the amount from the opposite party.  The Forum opines that since the complainant is possessing the R.D.P. receipt and  there is no evidence available with the opposite party to show the withdrawal by the complainant the opposite party is responsible for the deposited amount of the complainant. The point is answered in favor of the complainant.

7.      POINT No.2:-  Since  the complainant is possessing the Reinvestment Deposit Plan receipt and there is no evidence contra with the opposite party , the opposite party is liable to pay the deposit amount to the complainant.

         The complainant after depositing the amount  with the opposite party in 1985, has turned up in the year 2013 (as per the complaint) i.e. after 28 years, to take the amount. The complainant could have approached the opposite party in the year of maturity i.e.,1988 itself .  

        In such circumstance , directing the opposite party to compensate the complainant is not proper.        

8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below :

1.  The opposite party is directed to pay Reinvestment Deposit Plan maturity amount of Rs.40,350/- (Rupees forty thousand three hundred and fifty only) with admissible interest from time to time as per the RBI guidelines from 30-07-1988 till realization, to the complainant. 

        The above order shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which the amounts ordered in item No.1 shall carry interest @9% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 28^th day of May, 2014.

            Sd/-XXX                              Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                        MEMBER                       PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:

                                                                                                    Sd/-XXX

        PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.