BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 5th day of May, 2009
C.C.No.188/08
Between:
P.Mohammed Yaseen,S/o.P.Mohammed Ibrahim,
R/o. H.No.30-66-1, Chittari Street, Kurnool-518001.
… Complainant
Versus
1. The Chairman, National Co-operative Bank Limited,
D.No.38-1(Upstairs), Opp. State Bank of India Bazar Branch,Minchin Bazar, Kurnool-518001.
2. The Branch Manager, National Co-operative Bank Limited,
D.No.38-1(Upstairs), Opp. State Bank of India Bazar Branch, Minchin Bazar, Kurnool-518001.
… Opposite parties
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri M.Safiulla Ansari , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. D.Siva Sankar Reddy , Advocate for opposite party No. 1&2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, President)
C.C.No.188/08
1. This case of the complainant is filed U/S 11 and 12 of C.P.Act seeking an award directing the opposite parties to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of special term deposit No.000157 renewed on 04-07-2007 with interest at 24% , Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the case along with other reliefs entitled in the exigencies of the case alleging deficiency of service of the opposite parties in payment of the maturity amount of said Special Term Deposit Receipt (STDR ) inpsite of several demands and legal notice dated 21-10-2008 and the said conduct of the opposite parties not only caused considerable hardship for having amount for urgent domestic needs but also ensued considerable mental agony .
2. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties caused their appearance through their counsel and contested the case filling its written version seeking the dismissal of complaint in view of the pending departmental enquiry and police investigation in Cr.No. 303/2007 of Two Town police , Kurnool for offence U/s 409 IPC as to the misuse of bank fund by Syed Hussain Pasha @ Hassan Basha – the previous bank Chairman cum Chief Executive Officer and his brother , and no locus standie to the complainant to file this case as the bank requirements not fulfilled.
3. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainant side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.A1 to A2 besides to its sworn affidavit of the complainant the opposite party side has taken reliance on documentary record in Ex.B1 and B2 and sworn affidavits of opposite party No. 1.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the alleged deficiency of the opposite party is made out by the complainant to make of the opposite party liable for the complainants claim.
6. The Ex.A1 is the STDR No. 000157 dated 04-07-2003 . Its perusal indicates that it was issued by the opposite parties originally on 04-07-2003 in favor of the complainant receiving Rs.20,000/- there under for a period of one year to repay with an interest at 7% p.a on the date of its maturity. It further envisages the renewal of the said STDR for Rs.20,000/- on the dates of their maturity in the years 2004, 2005 , 2006 , 2007 and ultimately standing its maturity to 04-07-2008 for an amount of Rs. 21,542/- as Senior Citizen Depositor .
7. The written version of the opposite parties also admits the said facts envisaged in Ex.A1. Therefore the Ex.A1 is remaining proved by the complainant to the liability of the opposite parties there under for payment of mature amount on the stipulated date of its maturity .
8. The Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice dated 21-10-2008 caused to the opposite party vide postal receipts therein and served on the opposite parties while the postal acknowledgements thereunder. The Ex.A2 sets out all the grievances of the complainant as set out in the compliant as to the issual of STDR and its renewals and the defaultive conduct of the opposite parties in not paying mature amount inpsite of several demands which finds corroboration in the sworn affidavit of the complainant also . Neither the contents of said notice were responded by the opposite parties in way of reply with any plausible explanation to find any excuse in their lapse conduct nor did it takes any mention as to said legal notice of the complaint nor assigns any reasons for not responding to it in its written version. From the said circumstances of any denial of the opposite party as to said Ex.A2 and grievances of complainant said there in , the bonafides of said Ex.A2 remains in favor of the complainant as to the liability of the opposite parties under said STDR in Ex.A1 towards the complainant.
9. The decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in Bank of Baroda Vs MS.Sikha Kumar reported in I (2007) CPJ Pg.273 (NC) holds no illegality as jurisdiction error in the award passed for return of maturity amount with interest where the manager along with some other officials misappropriated large amounts from bank and two FIRs were registered for that.
10. Hence the defence taken by the opposite parties that the previous chairman Cum CEO of said bank and his brother misused in the bank funds and a case in Cr.No.303/07 of P.S Town Police station, Kurnool U/S 409 IPC was registered and besides to pendency of the investigation of the police , an enquiry by Assistant Registrar / Sub Divisional Co-Operative Development Officer, Kurnool is pending and so the complainant is having no locus stande to file the case etc., appears to be having any merit and force worthy of consideration especially when the said pending enquiries or investigations are as to the bank amounts misappropriated by the bank officials and the case of the complainant is for refund of the maturity amount of said STDR which was subjected to any such stipulations of enquiries or investigations of said banks internal administrations exhibited by the Ex.B1 and B2 i.e, compliant laid with police as to misappropriation of bank amounts , minutes resolution of the bank Chairman and its members to prefer compliant with police against said Chairman Syed Hussain Pasha.
11. The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in its decision in Alahabad Bank Vs Shiva Swaroop Shrivatsav reported in I (2007) CPJ Pg.221 NC holds vicarious liability of the bank – as employer – for the loss caused to customer through misdemeanour or negligence of employee . Therefore there appears every justifiability in complainant’s seeking a vicarious relief on the opposite party No. 1 for the deficient acts of its employee branch manager i.e, opposite party No. 2 .
12. As the opposite parties by their conduct of non refund of mature amount of said STDR to the complainant not only committed deficiency in their service obligated to the complainant under said STDR but also ensued a considerable mental agony depriving the complainant of the availability of maturity amount to the pressing needs of the complainant and also to the cost of the case by driving the complainant to the forum for redressal of his justifiable grievances .
13. Therefore , in the result of the above discussion the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 at their joint and several liability to pay to the complainant the maturity amount of Rs.21,542/- mentioned in Ex.A1 , Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the case within a month of receipt of this order. In default the supra stated award amount shall be payable by the opposite parties at their joint and several liability to the complainant with an interest 12% p .a from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 05th day of May, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Special term deposit receipt No.000157 dt.4-7-03. Renewal for period from 4-7-07 to 4-7-08.
Ex.A2. Office copy of legal notice dt.21-10-08 along with two postal acks. & receipts.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
Ex.B1. Office copy of complaint dt.17-02-2007 to II town Inspector, Kurnool.
Ex.B2. Attested copy of resolution dt.5-12-07.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
