Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/190/2018

Smt Anitha Lakshmi.M W/o late Manjunath.K - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General manager,Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.Thippeswamy.N

31 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:01.10.2018

DISPOSED  ON:31.01.2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO:190/2018

 

DATED:  31^st JANUARY 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :    PRESIDENT                            B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI:

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

 

……COMPLAINANT	Smt Anitha Lakshmi.M W/o late Manjunath.K, Adiralu Village, Hiriyuru taluk, Chitardurga.   (Rep by Sri.Thippeswamy.N, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The General Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, Main Office No32,Main Road, Chitardurga, Sampangi road, Gandhi Nagara, Bellary.   2. The Divisional Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, IUDP Layout, PB Road, Chitradurga.   3. The Branch Manager, Pragathi Krishna Grameena Bank, VV Pura Branch, VV Pura, Hiriyuru Tq.Chitradurga.          (Rep by Sri.A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.4,65,447/- towards compensation with interest @ 2% p.m with cost and to grant such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, on 30.08.2013 the complainant has opened S.B A/c No.10853101013153 with OP No.3 and transacting the said account.  It is further submitted that, on 20.09.2013, the husband of the complainant by name Manjunath. K died due to vehicle accident.  The husband of the complainant has taken Insurance policy during his life time.  After his death, an amount of Rs.1,09,447/- has been sent by the concerned authority to the account of the complainant towards insurance amount as she was nominee under the policy.  After that, the complainant approached the OP No.3 to withdraw the same after lapse of four years.  By that time, the amount was not available in her account because somebody has been withdrawn the same.  The complainant approached OP No.1 and 2 with regard to the same.  The OP No.1 and 2 informed the complainant to wait for some time to enquire the same.  After lapse of one month, again the complainant approached OP No.1 and 2, by that time also, they seek some more time to settle the claim.  After lapse of some time, the complainant approached OP No.1 and 2 by that time, OP No.1 and 2 have given evasive answer and they were not ready to settle the claim.  On 25.03.2018, the OP No.3 told the complainant that, the entire amount has been withdrawn by her through ATM, but the complainant was not having ATM or cheque facilities from the OP No.3.  On 14.07.2018, the complainant was issued legal notice to the OPs requesting to settle the claim.  After receiving the said notice by the OPs, they have not settled the claim.  Hence, this complaint.

3.     On service of notice to the OPs, Sri. A.M. Rudramuni, Advocate appeared on behalf of OPs and filed version.   According to the version filed by the OPs, it is submitted that, they have admitted that, the complainant has opened S.B A/c with the V.V. Pura Branch and she was transacting with the Bank since from opening of the Account.  Further it is stated that, the Branch Manager of the OP has issued ATM card to the complainant on 04.03.2014.  It is admitted that, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been credited to the account of the complainant on 22.05.2014 from National Insurance Company through NEFT towards insurance amount and before that, an amount of Rs.9,267/- has also been credited to her account.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has withdrawn an amount nearly for four times for an amount of Rs.9,267/- before crediting Rs.1,00,000/- through ATM.  Further it is stated that, on 19.03.2014 and on 22.05.2014 an amount of Rs.9,267/- and Rs.1,00,000/- has been credited to the complainant’s S.B A/c and since from 19.03.2014 till the date of notice, she kept quite.  Further the complainant has withdrawn Rs.1,00,000/- on several times through ATM up to 30.06.2014 and each withdrawal will be triggered to her registered cell phone.  The last withdrawal was noticed on 30.06.2014 through ATM and SMS alert charges also debited to her account.  Since from 30.06.2014 till issuing of legal notice dated 14.07.2018, she kept silent without enquiry with the Bank since from last four years.  The OP No.3 has issued reply on 25.08.2018 to the complainant stating that, the amount has been withdrawn through ATM and further the allegations made in para 6 to 10 are hereby false and the OPs have denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint.  The allegations made in the complaint are entirely false and it is a created to get benefit from the OPs.  There is no cause of action for this complaint.  Further there is a loan of her husband at V.V. Branch, the Manager has demanded so many times to repay the loan amount.  Finally the complainant has discharged the loan amount of Rs.50,000/- on 06.02.2018 and Rs.23,750/- respectively under two slips and the said loan is closed.  Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-10 got marked.  OPs have examined one Sri. S. Yogesh, the Manager and P.A. Holder of OP No.3 and relied on Ex.B-1 to B-10 documents and closed their side.

5.     Arguments heard.

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, she has not withdrawn the amount from her account through ATM and further the OPs have failed to settle the claim of the complainant and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, the complainant is having an amount of Rs.1,09,447/- with her SB A/c maintained with the OP No.3.  The said amount was sent by the National Insurance Company to the complainant to the S.B A/c of the complainant towards Insurance Policy amount of her husband who died on 20.09.2013.  After that the complainant has visited OP No.3 for withdrawal of the said amount.  By that time, the OP No.3 told that there is no amount in her SB A/c, the amount with the account was already withdrawn through ATM.  But as per the documents produced by the complainant and OPs, clearly shows that, the complainant is not having ATM facility from the OP No.3.  The OPs have taken a contention in their version that, the complainant has withdrawn the amount from her account for four times through ATM, but they have not produced any piece of paper to show that, the complainant has withdrawn the amount from her account through ATM.  The Advocate for the complainant argued that, the complainant was having the S.B A/c with OP No.3 and Rs.1,09,447/- has been sent by the Insurance Company to her account towards insurance policy of her husband through NEFT.  Further it is argued that, the complainant was not having ATM facility and she has not withdrawn the amount at any point of time.  Therefore, the averments made by the OP No.3 is not sustainable under law, because she has not withdrawn the amount from OP No.3 through ATM.  The OPs argued that the complainant has withdrawn the amount from OP No.3 for several times through ATM and further the complainant is having ATM facility from OP No.3 and OP No.3 has produced Ex.b-1 to B-10 documents which shows that the complainant was having SB A/c with OP No.3 and the mother-in-law of complainant and her husband have obtained loan from OP No.3, the same has been already discharged by the complainant herself.  The OP No.3 has produced the documents which shows that the husband of the complainant has obtained loan from the OP No.3 and further the OPs never produced any documents to show that the complainant has obtained ATM card from the OP No.3 and hence, the arguments advanced by the Advocate for OPs is not sustainable under law.

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by both the parties, it clearly shows that, the complainant was having SB A/c with the OP No.3 and the husband of complainant was died due to vehicle accident on 20.09.2013.  Before that the husband of the complainant was having insurance policy. Due to the death of the policy holder, an amount of Rs.1,09,447/- has been sent by the insurance company to the SB A/c of the complainant as she is the nominee under the policy.  Accordingly, the complainant has approached the OP No.3 to withdraw the above said amount, by that time, the OP No.3 says that the same has been withdrawn through ATM, but the complainant never withdrawn the amount from her SB A/c at any point of time through ATM because she has no ATM facility.  The documents produced by the complainants clearly shows that, the complainant was having the SB A/c with the OP No.3 and she has requested the OP No.3 to withdraw the amount from her account which was credited by the insurance company towards the insurance policy of her husband, but the OP No.3 told that, the amount has been already withdrawn through ATM.  The Ex.A-9 produced by the complainant is the paper cutting, which shows that, if any amount has been misused by any person from the account holder i.e., “¨ÁåAPï SÁvɬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ºÀt AiÀiÁgÉÆà JUÀj¹zÀÝgÉ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPï ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ”.   In this case also, some body has withdrawn the amount from the SB A/c of the complainant.  Hence, the OPs are held liable to pay the amount to the complainant which was credited to the SB A/c of the complainant towards the insurance amount of her husband as she is the nominee under the policy.    Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed pay a sum of Rs.1,09,447/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceeding.  

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Lady Member after the correction of the draft on 31/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)     

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:  Sri. S. Yogesh, the Manager and P.A. Holder by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Legal notice dated 14.07.2018
02	Ex-A-2:-	Pass Book
03	Ex-A-3:-	Form A
04	Ex.A-4:-	Letter from complainant to OP No.2
05	Ex.A-5:-	Letter from OP No.2 to complainant
06	Ex.A-6:-	Death Certificate
07	Ex.A-7:-	Letter to OP No.3 by complainant
08	Ex.A-8:-	Pass Book
09	Ex.A-9:-	Paper cutting
10	Ex.A-10:-	Letter to OP No.3 by complainant
11	Ex.A-11:-	Postal order

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Specimen signature card dated 31.05.2012
02	Ex-B-2:-	Pronote dated dated 31.05.2012
03	Ex-B-3:-	Letter of revival dated 13.05.2015
04	Ex-B-4:-	Payment voucher dated 06.02.2018
05	Ex-B-5:-	Payment voucher dated 06.02.2018
06	Ex.B-6:-	Specimen signature card dated 30.08.2018
07	Ex.B-7:-	Form No.61
08	Ex.B-8:-	Request letter dated 04.03.2014
09	Ex.B-9:-	Pragathi Rupay ATM Card application
10	Ex.B-10:-	Account extracts

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**