Date of filing:27-06-2013
Date of Disposal: 28-04-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT:- Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A.,B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Monday, the 28th day of April, 2014
C.C.NO.113/2013
Between:
T.Kona Reddy
S/o Late T.Ramachandra Reddy
D.No.11-356,
Aravinda Nagar,
Ananthapuramu. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The Deputy General Manager,
Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,
Hotel Rajvihar Road
- The Chief Manager,
Andhra Bank,
Court Road,
- The Branch Manager,
Andhra Bank,
Ananthapurmu District.…. Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri N.R.K.Mohan and Sri A.Suresh Kumar, Advocates for the complainant and Sri A.N.Guru Prasad, Advocate for the opposite parties 1 to 3 and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC):- This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 to 3 claiming a sum of Rs.70,660/- with interest from 29-12-1999 , Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and award costs of the complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that :- The father of the complainant by name T.Ramachandra Reddy had deposited the amount in Andhra Bank, Court Road Branch, Ananthapuramu/2nd opposite party. Subsequently after the demise of the complainant’s father, his deposits were settled and the complainant’s share was 1/5th in the said amount and the said amount was kept under Sundry Creditors towards his alleged S.V.Cements liability for which he was one of the Directors. A sum of Rs.70,660/- was kept in Sundry Creditors Account. Then the complainant has given a letter dt.29-12-1999 requesting the opposite party to keep the said amount in Fixed Deposit without prejudice his rights. Subsequently S.V.Cements Directors changed and finally the Bank has filed a case in O.A.No.1618/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of the amount from the S.V.Cements and the said case was disposed on 05-01-2012 and settled out of court. Final order of Debts Recovery Tribunal shows that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- has been received as full and final settlement as against the claim of Rs.2,27,15,037/- with future interest and costs. Therefore as nothing survived in O.A.No.1618/99 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn and settled out of court.
3. The complainant submits that the amount of the complainant kept under Sundry Creditors account was not taken into consideration at the time of settlement. So the complainant is entitled for the said amount with interest thereon. The complainant addressed number of letters to all the opposite parties, but there was no response from the opposite parties. It is stated in a reply of the 2nd opposite party that the amount was transferred to the Tadipatri Branch/3rd opposite party. Then the complainant addressed a letter to the 3rd opposite party on 07-06-2012 but there was no reply from the 3rd opposite party. The complainant submits that after closer of the case before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, there is no liability on the part of the complainant and the Bank can no longer withhold the amount belonging to the complainant. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs.70,660/- with interest. Finally the complainant got issued a notice on 21-07-2012 to the opposite parties but there was no reply from the opposite parties. This shows that there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant estimated to a sum of Rs.20,000/- and due to negligent attitude of the opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental agony for which the complainant estimated to a sum of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Counter filed on behalf of the opposite party No.3 and adoption memo filed on behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2 adopting the counter of the opposite party No.3. The opposite party No.3 filed counter stating that T.Kona Reddy was one of the Directors alongwith T.Ravindra Reddy, K.Chakrapani and P.Rameswar Reddy, who have extended personal guarantee to the limits of the company. The complainant has deposited in his individual capacity with 2nd opposite party which matured and the same term deposit was transferred from the 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party on 28-02-2007 and treated as recoveries towards over-dues in company’s accounts.
5. The 3rd opposite party further submits that the Bank has a general lien upon the deposits of the complainant since he has extended his personal Guarantee for the limits of the company. The opposite party submits that with the right of set off rule, the Bank has adjusted the deposits by treating as recoveries towards the dues from the company. Further the 3rd opposite party submits that the Head Office of the Bank i.e. Management Committee Powers has approved the compromise proposal for Rs.25,00,000/- on 30-07-2011 as against the liability of 191.93 lakhs after considering all the recoveries made from the date of account became N.P.A. (Non-performing Asset) till the date of approval for settlement of the loan account and the said compromise amount was paid in full on 30-09-2011 and the said amount includes the term deposit of the complainant and the same has been adjusted towards the loan account as the complainant has extended personal guarantee to the limits of the company. Further the opposite party submits that the deposit amount of the complainant was adjusted towards the loan amount of S.V.Cements, the question of refund of the deposit amount with interest does not arise and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, hence they are not liable to pay compensation either towards deficiency of service or towards mental agony.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties
1 to 3 ?
- To what relief?
7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 to 3, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party No.3 has been filed and marked Ex.B1 to B3 documents.
8. Heard both sides.
9. POINT NO.1:- The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant’s 1/5th share of total amount deposited by the complainant’s father was kept as deposit in favour of the complainant after the death of the complainant’s father. The complainant was one of the Directors of S.V.Cements at that time and the said amount of Rs.70,660/- was kept in Sundry Creditors Account as the complainant has given personal guarantee to the opposite party. The counsel for the complainant submits that as the said amount of Rs.70,660/- was kept in Sundry Creditors account, the complainant gave a letter dt.29-12-1999 requesting the 3rd opposite party to keep the said amount in Fixed Deposit without prejudice to his rights. Subsequently the Directors have changed and the Bank has filed a case in O.A.No.1618/99 before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad for recovery of the amount.
10. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the case was disposed off on 05-01-2012 and it was settled out of court and the docket order clearly shows that the matter was settled for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as full and final settlement as against the claim of Rs.2,27,15,037/- with future interest and costs. Therefore nothing survived in O.A.No.1618/99 and the same was dismissed as settled out of court. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has given a letter to the 2nd opposite party on 29-12-1999 requesting the 2nd opposite party to keep his share amount in F.D. for a period of 3 years without prejudice to his right, which is marked as Ex.A1. Further the counsel for the complainant argued that inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, the opposite parties have not responded properly to his letters. Further the counsel argued that the complainant had written a letter to the opposite party on 16-04-2012 and another letter to the 3rd opposite party on 07-06-2012 requesting them to send the F.D. amounts through demand draft but there was no reply from them. The counsel for the complainant submitted that a letter dt.22-05-2012 was sent to the complainant stating that the said amount was transferred to the 3rd opposite party and the same was adjusted towards the loan taken by S.V.Cements Ltd., The counsel for the complainant argued that the opposite party without giving any information to the complainant his deposit amount was transferred to the 3rd opposite party Branch and adjusted to the loan account of S.V.Cements for which the complainant was a Director and who stood as a personal guarantee for S.V.Cements. The counsel for the complainant argued that the above act of the opposite party shows their negligence in not informing the complainant prior to transfer of his F.D. amount to the 3rd opposite party with regard to his refund of the deposited amount inspite of his repeated letters, which amounts to deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to refund the deposit amount with interest and also to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony.
11. The counsel for the opposite party filed written arguments of 3rd opposite party. In the written arguments, the counsel for the 3rd opposite party submitted that the complainant was one of the Directors of S.V. Cements Ltd., alongwith T.Ravindranath Reddy, K.Chakarapani and P.Rameswar Reddy who have extended personal guarantee to the limits of the S.V.Cements. The counsel for the 3rd opposite party submitted that the complainant has deposited in his individual capacity with the 2nd opposite party which matured and the said term deposit was transferred from 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party on 28-02-2007 and treated the same as recovery towards overdue of the company account. Further the 3rd opposite party submitted that the Bank has a general lien upon the deposit of T.Kona Reddy with the Bank since the complainant has extended his personal guarantee for the limits of the company. Hence the opposite party has right to set off and the Bank has adjusted the deposit amount by treating it as recovery towards due from the company.
12. Further the 3rd opposite party has also submitted that the opposite party Head Office has approved the compromise proposal for Rs.25,00,000/- on 30-07-2011 as against the liability of Rs.1,91,093/- after considering recoveries made from the date of account became N.P.A. till the date of approval or settlement of loan account. The 3rd opposite party submitted that the compromise amount was paid in full on 30-09-2011 and the said amount includes term deposit of the complainant and the same has been adjusted towards loan account as the complainant has extended his personal guarantee to the limits of the company. Further the counsel submitted that Ex.B2 and B3 , which are personal guarantee documents signed by the complainant which show that the complainant is liable for the loan taken by S.V.Cements. The counsel for the 3rd opposite party further submitted that as a guarantor the complainant has agreed with the Bank shall have full discretionary powers without any further assent or knowledge and without discharge or in any way effecting the guarantor’s liability under this guarantee from time to time and in time and other relevant matters furnished in para 3 of Ex.B2 and all the points are in favour of the opposite party. Further the opposite party No.3 submitted that as the Ex.B2 and B3 clearly show that the opposite parties have not caused any deficiency of service to the complainant as the complainant’s deposit was adjusted towards overdue the loan account of S.V.Cements. The counsel submitted that hence there is no deficiency of service and not liable to pay to the complainant as claimed for in the complaint.
13. After hearing the arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and perusing the documents filed by the complainant and 3rd opposite party, the document which is marked as ex.A1, which is a letter addressed to the 2nd opposite party on 29-1-21999 to make his share as deposit instead of keeping it in Sundry Creditors Account. In document Ex.A2 it is a docket order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad which shows that the total loan amount was settled for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as full and final settlement as against the claim of Rs.2,27,15,037/- with future interest and costs. Therefore nothing survives in O.A.No.1618/99 and the same is dismissed as settled out of court. Subsequent to this order the complainant had addressed a letter to the 1st opposite party on 16-04-2012 requesting him to settle the matter by sending demand draft of his F.D. amount with interest, which is marked Ex.A3 and in document Ex.A5 dt.07-06-2012 which is addressed to the 3rd opposite party requesting to refund the deposit amount with interest, which was transferred from 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party. After thorough perusal of the said documents, the deposit amount of the complainant was transferred to 3rd opposite party on 28-02-2007 and the same was treated as recovery towards overdue of the company and the docket order of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, which is marked as Ex.A2 is dt.05-01-2012 i.e. 5 years after transfer of deposit amount from 2nd opposite party to 3rd opposite party, which was adjusted towards the overdue of S.V.Cements. Considering the above documents, the Bank has lien over the deposits of the complainant and without any prior information the opposite party has right to adjust the deposits of the complainant towards overdue of the company for which the complainant has stood as guarantor in his personal capacity. In the above circumstances, the arguments of the complainant that the opposite party has not informed that the deposit amount was adjusted towards overdue accounts of S.V.Cements can not be considered and further we are convinced with the arguments of the opposite parties that the said amount was transferred to 3rd opposite party Branch in the year 2007 i.e. very much prior to final settlement on 05-01-2012 which clearly shows that the matter was finally settled for a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- after considering all the previous payments. Hence we are of the view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are not liable to refund the F.D.amount with interest to the complainant.
14. POINT NO.2 – In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 28th day of April, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of letter of the complainant dt.29-12-1999 to 2nd opposite party.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Docket order dt.05-01-2012 of the Debts Recovery Tribunal,
Hyderabad.
Ex.A3 - Letter dt.16-04-2012 addressed by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of letter dt.22-05-2012 addressed by the 2nd opposite party to the
Complainant.
Ex.A5 - Photo copy of letter dt.07-06-2012 addressed by the complainant to the 3rd
Opposite party.
Ex.A6 – Office copy of legal notice dt.21-07-2012 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite parties 1 to 3.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Ex.B1 – Certificate dt.31-10-2013 issued by the 3rd opposite party.
Ex.B2 – Photo copy of General Form of guarantee dt.13-05-199 executed by the complainant
and others to the Opposite party No.3.
Ex.B3 - Photo copy of General Form of guarantee dt.17-03-1988 executed by the complainant
and others to the Opposite party No.3.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAM
Typed JPNN
