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
Friday the 18th day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 6/08
Between:
P. Balaramudu, S/o. P. Sanjanna, Retired as Branch Manager,
D.C.C . Bank Nandikotkur Branch,
R/o.D.No.78-8D-2,2, Krishna Nagar, Kurnool.
… Complainant
Versus
The General Manager, District Co-Operative Central Bank Limited,
Near Collector Complex, Kurnool.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. B.K.Rama Seshanna, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. K. Rama Krishna Rao, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No 6/08
1. This consumer compliant of the complainant is filed U/s 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking a direction on opposite party to pay the matured amount under two deposits of Rs.30,600/- and Rs.7,916 with interest, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony , cost of the complaint and any 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 is a retired employee of opposite party and on 30-6-2005 attained superannuation and all retirement benefits are paid by the opposite party except Rs.32,793/- . Instead of paying the said amount the opposite party issued two fixed deposit receipts bearing No.010847 dated 2-9-2005 for Rs.26,050/- and another receipt bearing No. 010863 dated 9-9-2005 for Rs.6,740/-. After maturity the complainant approached opposite party for matured amount and the opposite party again issued two fixed deposit receipts for matured amount bearing No.006065 dated 2-9-2006 for Rs.30,600/- and another receipt No.006066 dated 9-7-2007 for Rs.3,916/- , even after completion of maturity period for the 2nd time the opposite parties did not pay the matured amount under said fixed deposit receipts . Due to the above attitude of opposite parties the complainant suffered mental agony and resorted to the forum for relief’s.
3. In substantiation of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) letter dated 5-10-2007 of complainant addressed to opposite party, (2) FDR bearing No.006065 dated 2-9-2007 and (3) FDR bearing No.006066 dated 9-9-2007 , besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A3 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party submits that the opposite party bank is registered under A.P.Co-operative Societie’s Act. The employees of Co-operative Central Bank raised a dispute against the management in the state before the industrial tribunal and the award was passed by the tribunal, wherein the Co-operative District Central Bank was categorized as A-class and the salary payable to the staff as per regulations applicable to A-class bank was being paid, but subsequently the status of the bank was defined as B-class bank and the salary payment, as payable to B-class bank has to be paid . The employees of the co-operative central bank filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court and obtained status-quo orders. In respect of retired employees out of the retirement benefits the difference in salary was deposited with the bank under the suit instruments with a condition that depositor cannot seek for pre maturer encashment or seek for any loan pledging the instrument and the FDR becomes payable after the disposal of writ petition and till now the writ petition is pending. Until the writ petition is disposed off the rights of the depositor cannot be given effective at the stage. Hence, the complaint is deviode of merit and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
6. In support of their case the opposite parties filed their sworn affidavit and did not file any documents and replies to the interrogatories exchanged
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties ?.
8. It is the simple case that he was an employee of opposite party and attained superannuation on 30-6-2005 and all his retirement benefits are paid except Rs.32,793/- and for the said amount the opposite party issued two FDR, and on presenting the said two FDR for maturity the opposite party again issued two FDR for Rs.30,600/- and Rs.3,916/- vide Ex.A2 and Ex.A3. The said two FDRs bears endorsement ‘ No loan and no pre mature withdrawals will be allowed until the receipt of High Court judgment’. After maturity the complainant presented the said FDRs for maturity but the opposite party did not pay the said maturity amount. On the other side the opposite party in their written averments submitted that the said two FDRs maturity amount will be paid only after receipt of High Court judgment and as the said FDRs bears endorsement as “No loan and no premature withdraws will be allowed until the receipt of High Court judgments.’’ It is also submitted by the opposite party that the writ petition before the High Court is pending and the orders are awaiting until the disposal of the said writ petition, the maturity amount under the said two FDRs can not be paid to the complainant.
9. The counsel for the complainant strongly contended that on the FDRs it is clearly mentioned that “No loan or premature withdrawals will be allowed until the receipt of High Court judgment”, but regarding the maturity amount of the FDRs no stipulation is mentioned. The complainant in this case is not seeking for loan or for premature withdrawals on the FDRs, but seeking for payment of maturity amount, the endorsement on the FDRs only restricts the complainant not to take loan or premature withdrawals, but regarding the maturity amount there is nothing on record to show that maturity amount under the said FDRs cannot be paid to the complainant. In the absence of any material regarding the payment of maturity amount, and withholding the said maturity amount by the opposite parties is certainly amounting to deficiency of service.
10. The other contention of the opposite party is that a writ petition is filed by the employees of the Co-operative Bank for categorization of opposite party bank and it is pending and until the disposal of said writ petition the FDR amount cannot be paid, but regarding the writ petition no material is filed to substantiate their plea, but the endorsement on the FDRs says that no loan or premature withdrawals will be allowed until the receipt of High Court, Judgment, but no such restriction is made on the FDR as to the payment of maturity amount. Hence, the said endorsement cannot be a rider for payment of maturity amount to the complainant. Hence, from discussions made above the opposite party cannot withhold the maturity amount of the said FDRs after maturity date, therefore, the opposite party is liable to return the matured FDR amount, of said two FDRs with interest to the complainant, and as the opposite party driven the complainant to the forum for redressal the opposite party is also liable to pay costs of Rs.500/-.
11. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant the matured amount under the two FDRs bearing Nos.006065 & 006066 to the complainant with 9% interest from the date of maturity till realization along with costs of Rs.500/- within one month from the date receipt of this order. In default, the opposite party shall pay the supra award amount with 12% interest from the date of default till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 18th day of July, 2008.
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. Letter, dated 5-10-2007 of complainant to opposite party.
Ex.A2. FDR bearing No.006065 , dated 2-9-2007.
Ex.A3. FDR bearing No.006066 , dated 9-9-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
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 party.
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
Copy was posted on :
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
Friday the 18th day of July, 2008
C.C.No. 6/08
Between:
P. Balaramudu,
S/o. P. Sanjanna,
Retired as Branch Manager,
D.C.C. Bank Nadikotkur Branch,
R/o.D.No.78-8D-2-2,
Krishna Nagar,
Kurnool. … Complainant
Versus
The General Manager,
District Co-operative Central Bank Limited,
Near Collector Complex,
Kurnool. … Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.B.K. Rama Seshanna, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.D. Sreenivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Letter, dated 5-10-2007 of complainant to OP.
Ex.A2. FDR bearing No.006065.
Ex.A3. FDR bearing No.006066 , dated 9-9-2007.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:
-Nil-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to:-
1. Sri.A. Jagadish Kumar, Advocate, Kurnool., for complainant
2. Sri.A.Rama Subba Reddy, and Sri. A. Prabhakar Reddy,
Advocates, Kurnool, for the opposite party.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
