This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant Prakash Katti against the Respondent-Chief Manager State Bank of Hyderabad Station Branch Raichur. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: <br /> The complainant is own-younger-brother of late Raghavendra Rangarao Katti who expired on 02-05-05 at Raichur by natural death. During his life time he had savings with Respondent Bank bearing A/c. No. 01190009173 with ATM facilities and there was a balance of Rs. 24,015/- in the said account on the date of death of the deceased A/c. holder. Being a own younger brother and sole legal heir of deceased Dr. Raghavendra Katti, the complainant had given a Verbal Intimation regarding the death of his deceased brother to the Respondent on 16-05-05 at 11-00 a.m. Further he had given Written Intimation along with Death Certificate & Pass Book to the Respondent on 19-05-05. As a token of acknowledgement, the Respondent has issued a computerized statement of Accounts to the complainant on the same day which shows a balance of Rs. 24,015/-. Subsequently the complainant has submitted Claim Form on 11-08-05 and thereafter he submitted it along with supported documents on 19-08-05 and obtained acknowledgement from the Respondent on the letter of intimation addressed to the Respondent on 19-05-05.<br /> The Respondent sent a letter to the complainant on 31-10-05 by enclosing a banker’s cheque bearing No. 651666 dt. 26-10-05 for Rs. 1,415/- towards full settlement of the claim. The complainant came to know that there was two withdrawals of Rs. 15,000/- & Rs. 8,000/- on 13-07-05 from the deceased account. The complainant protested it. On 12-11-07 he addressed a letter to the Respondent for not taking cognizance of his earlier letter. In-order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings the complainant returned the said banker’s cheque bearing No. 659666 dt. 26-10-05 to the Respondent on 29-11-05 & obtained the signature with seal of the Respondent. He moved from Earth to Heaven and Heaven to Earth but it ended in smoke. Lastly he got issued legal notice to the Respondent on 20-08-07 through his counsel. In-spite of service of legal notice on the Respondent on 21-08-07, the Respondent has not come up to make full settlement of his legitimate claim and the complainant has been put to great loss. The failure of the Respondent in not making in full settlement amounts to deficiency and defective service. Hence for all these reasons he has sought for direction to the Respondent to make full settlement of Savings Bank A/c. No. 01190009173 with ATM facility standing in the name of his deceased brother Dr. Raghavendra Ranga Rao Katti and pay the entire outstanding amounts of Rs. 24,015/- to him along with interest there on at the rate of 12% p.a. from 19-08-05 till realization along with current and future interest and also sought for awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental tension torture and harassment.<br /> 2. In response to service of notice the Respondent Bank appeared through counsel and filed written version as under:-<br /> It is falsely contended that the complainant had given oral intimation on 16-05-05 regarding death of Dr. Raghavendra Katti even the complainant did not submit written intimation along with death certificate of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 19-05-05. In-fact intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 has been submitted to the Respondent on 11-08-05. A letter was written to the complainant to attend required formalities of Bank and submit its necessary documents. The complainant submitted a letter dt. 08-10-05 with necessary documents. But the complainant did not submit ATM Card to the bank at an earliest. He retained that card with him. On 19-05-05 there was a balance of Rs. 24,015/- in the A/c. of Dr. Raghavendra Katti subsequently on 13-07-05 there was withdrawal of Rs. 15,000/- & Rs. 8,000/-. As per ATM Cum Debit Card User’s Manual, to withdraw amount one has to insert ATM Card and then PIN (Personal Identification Number) is to feed, then the amount will come out of the machine. The ATM Card of Dr. Raghavendra Katti was not in possession of bank. It was in possession of either with the complainant or with any other person and that person might have withdrawn the amount as detailed above and for that the bank is not responsible. Hence whatever the balance amount available has been paid to the complainant by issuing cheque for Rs. 1,415/-. The Bank has promptly replied to all the correspondence of the complainant. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent Bank. So this complaint is not maintainable. Hence for all these reasons the Respondent Bank has sought for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief reiterating the complaint averments and has got marked (9) documents at Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9. The Respondent Bank in rebuttal has filed the sworn-affidavit of its manager by way of examination-in-chief and has produced Users Manual ATM-CUM Debit Card at Ex.R-1 and Computerized Statement of Account of late Dr. Raghavendra Katti.<br /> 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination:<br /> <br /> 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service in not settling his claim? as alleged.<br /> <br /> 2.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> 1.In the affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following <br /> REASONS<br /> POINT NO.1 :-<br /> 6. There is no dispute that deceased Dr. Raghavendra Katti was account holder of S.B. A/c. No. 01190009173 with ATM Card facilities in the Respondent Bank and that he died on 02-05-05 at Raichur and that there was a balance of Rs. 24,015/- in the Bank account of the deceased as on 19-05-05. Even though the Respondent Bank in their written version at Para-2 has contended that the complainant is not a consumer to the Respondent Bank, but Para- 5 & 6 of the written version shows that the Respondent Bank has made correspondence with the complainant and the bank has issued a cheque for Rs. 1,415/- to the complainant. These averments indicate that the Respondent Bank has not denied the locus standi of the complainant for settlement of S.B. A/c. of deceased Dr. Raghavendra Katti being the own brother of the complainant. Further more the complainant has produced Xerox coy of the Ration Card at Ex.P-9 issued by Food & Civil supply Officer at Raichur. This Ration Card Ex.P-9 shows the name of one Ranganath V. Katti as head of the family residing in the house No. 1-1-109 at Udaya Nagar, Station Road Raichur and names other family members including Dr. Raghavendra Katti and Prakash Katti (complainant) whose name are at Sl.No. 3 & 4 of the Ration Card. This in-turn shows that the complainant Prakash Katti is the younger brother of late Dr. Raghavendra Katti, the Account holder with the Respondent Bank. Hence it shows that the Respondent Bank has not disputed the locus standia of the complainant and thereby the allegations of the Respondent Bank that the complainant is not consumer holds no water.<br /> 7. It is the case of the complainant that on the death of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 02-05-05 at Raichur the complainant made verbal intimation on 16-05-05 to the Respondent Bank and thereafter on 19-05-05 he had given written intimation along with death certificate and Pass Book to the Respondent Bank and as a token of acknowledgement, the Respondent Bank has issued a computerized statement of Account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on the same day showing the balance at Rs. 24,015/-. Thereafter he submitted a claim form on 11-08-05 and second time he submitted it along with supported documents on 19-08-05 and obtained acknowledgement from the Respondent on the letter of intimation dt. 19-05-05. Ex.P-2 is the Computerized Statement of Account dt. 19-05-05. Ex.P-3 is the Intimation Letter of the complainant dt. 19-05-05 to the Respondent Bank regarding death of his elder brother Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 02-05-05 and requested for crediting the dues amount of his elder brother’s account into his (complainant’s) Bank Account after due formalities. In the said letter he has shown the S.B. A/c. of his elder brother and his S.B. A/c. He had also shown the number of ATM Card of his elder brother. It also shows the enclosure of copy of death certificate of Dr. Raghavendra Katti. This letter of intimation does not show the acknowledgement by the Respondent Bank either on 19-05-05 or on subsequent dates. However it shows the affixture of Respondent Bank seal with written date as ‘11/08’. Apart from this seal, this letter (Ex.P-3) also shows two endorsements one dt. 19-08-05 another dt. 05-10-05 and they read as under: <br /> <br /> First endorsement: “received claim indemnity<br /> Sd/-<br /> dt. 19-08-05 Bank seal”<br /> <br /> Second endorsement: “Re- submitted on<br /> 05-10-05 ”<br /> Sd/-<br /> <br /> 8. So from this letter at Ex.P-3 it clearly shows that there is no endorsement-acknowledgement of this letter received by Respondent Bank on 19-05-05. According to the complainant the seal of the Respondent Bank with date as ‘11/08’ pertains to the acknowledgement of his having submitted claim- form on 11-08-05. But the Respondent Bank at Para-5 of written version has contended that the complainant did not submit written intimation with death certificate of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 19-05-05. In-fact intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 was submitted to the Respondent on 11-08-05. In this Para-5 itself the Respondent Bank has further contended that a letter was written to the complainant to attend require formalities of bank and submit its necessary document, hence the complainant submitted a letter dt. 08-10-05 with necessary documents. According to the complainant on filing of his letter on 19-05-05 vide Ex.P-3, the Respondent-Bank have issued a Computerized Statement of Account of his late Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 19-05-05 itself and the same has been produced at Ex.P-2. From a perusal of this Account Extract Ex.P-2, it shows it is a Computerized Statement of Extract Account issued on the letter pad of the Respondent-Bank- State Bank of Hyderabad on 19-05-05 for the priod from 01-01-05 to 19-05-05. Below this extract there is an endorsement that :<br /> “Unless the constituent notifies the Bank immediately of any discrepancy found in the Statement of Account, it will be taken that this Statement deemed to be correct”<br /> 9. The Respondent Bank in the written version have not specifically denied the issuance of the Computerized Statement of Account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 19-05-05 at Ex.P-2. However at the request of L.C. for the Respondent-Bank an opportunity was given for producing any evidence to show that the intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 was in-fact submitted to the Bank on 11-08-05. In-spite of granting sufficient opportunity, the Respondent Bank has not produced any piece of evidence to substantiate their contention that the intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 was in-fact submitted on 11-08-05 itself. Further the letter of intimation at Ex.P-3 is the office copy of the complainant. The Respondent Bank if really had received Intimation letter on 11-08-05 then there would have been some endorsement of the Bank-Authorities on the original letter of Ex.P-3 regarding receipt of the same on 11-08-05 and what prevented the Respondent Bank from producing the original letter of Ex.P-3 received by them to substantiate their contention regarding submission that letter on 11-08-05 itself. Therefore the contention of the Respondent Bank that the complainant has submitted the Intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 (at Ex.P-3) only on 11-08-05 and for that they had affixed Bank seal with date as “11/08” does not hold good. <br /> 10. As stated earlier we find two endorsements on the Intimation letter at Ex.P-3-the one is dt. 19-08-05 and the another is dt. 05-10-05. The Respondent Bank has not whispered in the written statement anything about these two endorsements. However the Respondent-Bank in Para-5 of their written version have contended that a letter was written to the complainant to attend required formalities of the bank and submit its necessary documents and accordingly complainant submitted a letter dt. 08-10-05 with necessary documents. The Respondent Bank has not produced this letter of complainant dt. 08-10-05 while submitting required documents. In this very Para in the next sentence the Respondent-Bank has further stated that “ The complainant did not submit ATM Card to the Bank at an earliest and he retained that card with him”. The Respondent Bank has not specifically stated that for closing of the account of ATM Card-Holder, surrender of ATM Card is a must. Of-course, as argued by the L.C. for Respondent generally ATM Card-Holders must have to surrender ATM Card for closing their account. But in the instant case when the ATM Card Holder Dr. Raghavendra Katti expired on 02-05-05 and according to the complainant he being own younger brother of this Dr. late Ragavendra Katti, had orally intimated the death of Dr. Raghavendra Katti on 16-05-05 and submitted written intimation along with death certificate on 19-05-05 and as discussed above the Respondent-Bank has not proved that the intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 was in-fact submitted to the Respondent Bank on 11-08-05, so in the absence of the same it follows that the intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 was in-fact submitted to the Respondent Bank on 19-05-05 itself and on that day itself the Respondent Bank gave the Computerized Account Extract of the Dr. Raghavendra Katti vide Ex.P-2. No co-gent & convincing explanation is coming forth from the Respondent Bank as to why the Respondent Bank gave Account Extract of Dr. Raghavendra Katti to the complainant on 19-05-05 vide Ex.P-2 without any letter of request by Account Holder or by the complainant. In the absence of the same in all probabilities it indicates that the Account Extract at Ex.P-2 came to be issued by the Respondent Bank in-consequence of the letter Ex.P-3 submitted by the complainant on 19-05-05. This Ex.P-3 intimation letter dt. 19-05-05 clearly shows the Account Number of the complainant ATM Card Number and enclosing of copy of death certificate of Dr. Raghavendra Katti. When this intimation letter Ex.P-3 showing all necessary information for closing the account of late Dr. Raghavendra Katti & transferring the balance amount in to the complainant’s A/c, then what more required to close the account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti. When according to them the complainant submitted a letter dt. 08-10-05 with necessary documents as called for by them except the ATM Card, then what steps they had taken for production of ATM Card if the production of which was necessary for closing the account, is not forth coming. It would be more so when the letter of the Respondent Bank dt. 31-10-05 produced at Ex.P-4 shows that the Respondent Bank by closing the account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti has sent a cheque bearing No. 651666 dt. 26-10-05 for Rs. 1,415/- to the complainant being the balance of the late Account Holder, this shows that the Respondent Bank has closed the account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti even without obtaining the ATM Card. So it clearly shows that production of ATM Card was not a sole criteria for closing the account of ATM Card Holder. If the Respondent Bank had closed the account, then mis-use of ATM Card would not have arisen since according to the Respondent Bank the ATM Card of Dr. Raghavendra Katti was in possession of the complainant or any of the person and that person might have withdrawn Rs. 15,000/- & 8,000/- on 13-07-05. If all these factors and lacunas are taken into account then it clearly goes to show that the alleged two withdrawals on 13-07-05 is the out-come of inaction by the Respondent-Bank in not closing the account soon after submission letter at Ex.P-3 by complainant and thereby it amounts to deficiency in service by the Respondent Bank. Hence we hold that the complainant has proved deficiency in service in not closing the account of Dr. Raghavendra Katti in-spite of request letter submitted by the complainant on 19-05-05 vide Ex.P-3. So Point NO-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> POINT NO.2:-<br /> 11. The complainant has sought for direction to the Respndent Bank to pay the entire outstanding amount of Rs. 24,015/- along with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from 19-05-05 the date of Statement of Extract Account issued to the complainant, till realization. Admittedly the Statement of Account Ex.P-2 shows it was issued on 19-05-05. Ex.P-4 the letter of the Respondent Bank dt. 31-10-05 shows that they had issued a cheque for Rs. 1,415/- being the proceeds of the outstanding balance of account of late Dr. Raghavendra Katti. But according to the complainant he has not accepted the said cheque and has sent back the same to the Respondent Bank vide his letter dt. 29-11-05 at Ex.P-6. The Respondent Bank which has filed the written statement on 12-11-07 have not whispered a single word about the return of this cheque issued by the complainant vide his letter dt. 29-11-05. Hence it follows that the cheque for Rs. 1,415/- issued by Respondent Bank has not been accepted and sent back to the Respondent Bank. So in-view of our finding and discussion on Point NO-1, the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 24,015/- being the balance as on 19-05-05. <br /> <br /> So far as the interest claimed at the rate of 24% p.a. from 19-05-05 and the claim of compensation of Rs. One Lakh for mental tension, harassment are concerned. It shows that the complainant is claiming both Interest & Compensation under two different head but having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award a global compensation of Rs. 12,000/-. In the result we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> The Respondent Bank shall pay Rs. 24,015/- being the balance of late Raghavendra Katti to the complainant along with a global compensation of Rs. 12,000/-.<br /> The Respondent Bank shall comply this order within a period of (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth with free of cost.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-06-08)<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/- <br /> Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath<br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. Gururaj <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br />