Date of filing: 20-03-2014
Date of Disposal: 08-01-2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU.
PRESENT: -Kum. Y.H.Prameela Reddy, M.A., LL.B., President
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 8th day of January, 2015
C.C.NO.75/2014
Between:
Smt.T.Vimalamma
W/o K.Sreeramulu
D.No.1/1135-6/K4
Adapala Street,
Kadiri Town,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
- The H.D.F.C. Bank, rep. by
the General Manager & Director,
Cash Management Services,
- 13th floor lodher excelers
Apollo Mills Compound,
N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi
Mumbai – 400 011.
- The Branch Manager,
H.D.F.C. Bank,
Hindupur Post,
Ananthapuramu District. … Opposite Parties
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri G.Narasimhulu, Advocate for the complainant and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on complainant’s side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Kum.Y.H.Prameela Reddy, President: - The complainant Smt.T.Vimalamma W/o K.Sreeramulu residing at Door No.1/1135-6/K4, Adapala Street, Kadiri Town, Ananthapuramu District has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties (1) The H.D.F.C. Bank, rep. by the General Manager & Director, Cash Managements Services, 13th floor, Lodhr Excelers Apollo Mills Compound, N.M.Joshi Road, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai – 400 011 and (2) The Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank, Hindupur Post, Ananthapuramu District to direct them to pay total amount of Rs.1,51,000/- towards recurring deposit amount, interest, mental agony and costs of the complaint with the following few allegations that:
2. The complainant’s husband namely K.Sreeramulu had opened S.B.Account at opposite party institution in Hindupur Branch and at that time the Lady Officer of the opposite party Bank asked him to open one account in HDFC Bank for which the complainant’s husband replied that his wife i.e. complainant is going to open 5 years R.D. account at Post Office, immediately the Marketing Executive of the opposite party requested him to open R.D. account in HDFC Bank as this account is also like 5 years R.D. in Post Office and more over interest rate will be more than in Post Office and she can withdraw the said R.D. amount after 3 years. The complainant believed the words of the Officer of the opposite party and opened R.D. account. The complainant paid monthly Rs.4,000/- on 06-08-2009 vide receipt No.13063242 and paid 18 months i.e. Rs.72,000/-. Immediately after receiving the bond, the complainant noticed that it is an Insurance Policy. Then she telephoned to the opposite parties stating that instead of recurring deposit bond, they sent insurance bond, then they replied that it is recurring –cum-insurance bond and it will cover additionally insurance also. But to the surprise of the complainant, without notice and without submitting deposit bond for withdrawal/closer the opposite party returned the amount of Rs.12,394-36 through cheque No.285460 dt.12-02-2013 to the complainant. The complainant many times requested the opposite party that the said amount is retirement amount of her husband, who retired as A.S.P. in Postal Department nearly 36 years of service. Then the complainant’s husband personally met the opposite party’s enquiry officer of Anantapur District, who came to HDFC Bank at Hindupur Branch and requested to make an open enquiry, then real facts will come out. But the opposite party did not do the same, but the opposite party sent the said cheque amount, but the complainant returned the same to the opposite party also. The Marketing Executive misled the complainant and due to illiteracy of the complainant believed the words of the Marketing Executive, the complainant made the above said R.D. But the opposite party replied that it is capital protection funds for monies and there is insurance coverage also. The complainant made several times oral requests and also through g-mail correspondence with a request to close recurring deposit and return the amount as the opposite parties Executive Officer mislead the complainant as the said deposits are R.D. like in Post Office. Recently the complainant had received cheque bearing No.285460 dt.12-02-2013 for Rs.12,394-36 against the paid installment amount of Rs.72,000/-. Then the complainant returned the said cheque to the opposite party with a request to pay the total installments amount of Rs.72,000/-. The above said recurring deposits were made with the institutions of the opposite parties for the purpose of complainant’s grandson’s admission into school after three years. The above deposits were made like in Post Office. The opposite parties are liable to pay the amounts together with up-to-date interest at the contract rate of 24% p.a. Since the opposite parties did not turn up, the complainant got issued a legal notice dt.01-07-2013 to the opposite parties and the said notices served on the opposite parties 1 & 2. Having received the said notices, the opposite parties neither replied nor returned the deposited amount with up-to-date interest to the complainant. The opposite parties did not initiate any steps in this regard. Hence, the complainant prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay the amount with interest, mental agony and costs of the complaint.
3. On the other hands, the opposite parties remained exparte in this case.
4. On behalf of the complainant, the complainant Smt.T.Vimalamma has filed chief affidavit and the same is treated as PW1 and she relied upon the documentary evidence of Ex.A1 to A6. 1. Ex.A1 is photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.06-08-2009 for Rs.4,000/- issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ex.A2 is photo copy of e-mail letter dt.20-02-2013 sent by the husband of the complainant i.e.K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties. Ex.A3 is Photo copy of e-mail letter dt.08-01-2013 sent by the opposite parties to the husband of the complainant/K.Sreeramu. Ex.A4 is Photo copy of e-mail letter dt.02-01-2013 sent by the opposite parties to the husband of the complainant/K.Sreeramu. Ex.A5 is photo copy of e-mail letter dt.22-05-2013 sent by the husband of the complainant’s husband K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties. Ex.A6 is office copy of legal notice got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 & 2.
Heard
5. The points that arise for determination are:
1. Whether there is deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the
opposite parties 1 & 2 against the complainant ?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for ?
3. To what relief?
6. POINTS 1 & 2 – The burden lies on the complainant to establish her version. As such she has filed chief affidavit as PW1, wherein she stated that “ her husband K.Sreeramulu had opened S.B. account at opposite party institution in Hindupur Branch. At the time of opening of the said account, the Lady Officer, who is working in the opposite parties Bank asked him to open the account in HDFC Bank, then her husband replied that his wife i.e. complainant is going to open one 5 years R.D. account at Post Office. Then immediately the Marketing Executive of the opposite party requested him to open R.D. account in HDFC Bank as this account is also like 5 years R.D. in Post Office and more over interest rate will be more than in Post Office and they can withdraw the said amount after 3 years. Then the complainant as PW1 believed the words of Officer of the opposite party and opened R.D. account. She paid monthly Rs.4,000/- on 06-08-2009 vide receipt No.13063242 and paid 18 months i.e. Rs.72,000/-. Then immediately after receiving bond, she noticed that it is an insurance policy. The first premium receipt issued instead of recurring deposit receipt is Ex.A1. Then she telephoned to the opposite parties stating that instead of recurring deposit bond, they sent insurance bond. Then they replied that it is recurring-cum-insurance bond and it will cover additionally insurance also. There are number of g-mail correspondences in between herself and opposite parties’ dt.20-02-2013 under Ex.A2 and on 08-01-2013 under Ex.A3 and on 02-01-2013 under Ex.A4. But to her surprise without submitting deposit bond for withdrawal or closer the opposite party returned the amount of Rs.12,394.36 through cheque bearing No.285460 dt.12-02-2013 to her. The said g-mail correspondence is Ex.A5. Then she requested the opposite parties many times that the said amount is retirement amount of her husband, who retired as A.S.P. in Postal Department nearly after 36 years’ service. Then her husband personally met the opposite parties Enquiry Officer of Ananthapuramu District and requested him to make an open enquiry to know the real facts, but the opposite parties did not do the same. But the opposite party sent the cheque amount, but she returned the same to the opposite parties. The Marketing Executive misled her and due to illiteracy, she believed the words of the Marketing Executive, she made the above said recurring deposit. But the opposite party replied that it is a capital protection funds for the monies and there is insurance coverage also. Hence she prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay the amounts with up-to-date interest and future interest till the date of payment.”
7. In support of her above testimony, she also placed reliance on Ex.A1 to A6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant at the time of arguments that the opposite parties have misled the complainant and got deposit of her amount towards insurance policy instead of recurring deposit. As such the complainant seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay the amount as claimed by her with interest till the date of payment. Apparently both the opposite parties i.e. H.D.F.C. Bank/1st opposite party and Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Bank/2nd opposite party were remained exparte in this complaint. So on their behalf no representation. Taking the facts into consideration of chief affidavit of PW1 and documents under Ex.A1 to A6, it is quite evident that the complainant has deposited the amount under Ex.A1 with the opposite parties. As per the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and contents of chief affidavit of PW1 go to show that the intention of the complainant and PW1 in depositing Rs.4,000/- under Ex.A1 is towards recurring deposit rather than the insurance premium. But the very document filed by the complainant under Ex.A1 reveals that the said amount of Rs.4,000/- was received by the opposite parties towards insurance policy amount, so only they have issued first premium receipt under Ex.A1 to the complainant dt.06-08-2009. But the g-mail correspondence under Ex.A2, A3 and A4 were pertaining to the year 2013. No doubt the opposite parties have not appeared in this complaint and both of them remained exparte. But the burden lies on the complainant to prove her version irrespective of the defects of the opposite parties. According to the version of PW1, on receipt of Ex.A1 only she came to know that the opposite parties were adjusted the amount paid by her towards insurance policy rather than towards recurring deposit as intended by her. But there is no documentary evidence or proof in this case on behalf of the complainant to show that what steps were taken by the complainant soon after receipt of Ex.A1. No doubt, there is Gmail correspondence under Ex.A2 to A4 in between the complainant and the opposite parties, but the said entire correspondence and returned cheque under Ex.A5 including lawyer’s notice under Ex.A6 were pertaining to the year 2013 only. It shows that the complainant has not taken any steps immediately after receipt of Ex.A1. Whatever correspondence made by the complainant, she done only in the year 2013, but not soon after receipt of Ex.A1. More-over, there is no documentary evidence to show that the complainant has taken recurring deposit from the opposite parties. If there is recurring deposit of the customer, generally the concerned Bank will issue Recurring Deposit Pass Book. But the same is not filed by the complainant to substantiate her version. On the other hand, the complainant has filed Ex.A1 first premium receipt. The very document is going against the route of the version of the complainant. Hence, in such circumstances, in the absence of the evidence on the part of the complainant to show that she has taken recurring deposit from the Bank instead of insurance policy, we do not find any merits in the version of the complainant. Hence, these points were held against the complainant.
8. POINT NO.3 - In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 8th of January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVITS
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES
PW1 – Smt.T.Vimalamma, complainant - NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
1. Ex.A1 - Photo copy of First Premium Receipt dt.06-08-2009 for Rs.4,000/- issued by
the opposite parties to the complainant.
2. Ex.A2 - Photo copy of g-mail letter dt.20-02-2013 sent by the husband of the
complainant i.e.K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties.
3. Ex.A3 - Photo copy of g-mail letter dt.08-01-2013 sent by the opposite parties to the
husband of the complainant/K.Sreeramu.
4.Ex.A4- Photo copy of g-mail letter dt.02-01-2013 sent by the opposite parties to the
husband of the complainant/K.Sreeramu.
5.Ex.A5- Photo copy of g-mail letter dt.22-05-2013 sent by the husband of the
complainant’s husband K.Sreeramulu to the opposite parties.
6.Ex.A6- Office copy of legal notice dt.02-07-2013 got issued by the complainant to the
opposite parties 1 & 2.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
