BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 31^st March 2016        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.: 3/2016  

Complainant/s:               Jayalaxmi D/o.Shivappa Tattimani,

Age: 20 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Near Murugamath, Shivaganga Nagar, Dharwad.

(By Sri.S.V.Dhage, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:                 The Liquidator, Kittur Rani Channamma Mahila Pattana Sahakari Bank, Laxmi Balakrishna Square, Station Road, Hubballi 580020

                                        (By Sri.J.R.Mandre, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay the FDR matured amount of Rs.1,00,156/- with interest @18% from the date of maturity along with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the father of the complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.11000/- on 24.11.1998 in the name of the complainant under Bhagyalaxmi Deposit  account no.42/1 P No.40/1 for a period of 15 years to be matured after 15 years amounting to Rs.1,00,156/-. After maturity of FDR the complainant approached respondent, during that time they informed as per RBI their bank has been liquidated and the amount will be paid as per RBI directions, but they did not release the amount. On 24.11.2015 the complainant got issued legal notice to the respondent, for that on 27.11.2015 the respondents have sent untenable reply stating, deposit scheme has been cancelled and the complainant is entitled for only Rs.38,102/- towards the maturity value as per reschedule deposit scheme. At the instance of the respondent the complainant subjected to mental agony. The non payment of the matured amount by the respondent amounts to deficiency in service as such the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared and filed the written version in detail denying and disputing the complaint averments in toto and prays for dismissal of the complaint. Further the respondents taken contention that the complaint as brought is not maintainable as per KCC Act. In fact as per the guidelines of RBI and as per the circular of DIC the respondents released the amount of Rs.38,102/- in the name of complainant but the complainant did not claimed as such the said amount as per the circular recredited to the DIC as such the respondents have not committed any deficiency in service. Even after demand made by the complainant the respondents have sent requisition to the DIC to release the amount. immediately after the fund is released by the DIC the same will be released to the complainant as such there does not arise any question of deficiency in service and there is no cause of action for the present complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

  Both have admits sworn to evidence affidavit, relied on documents. Apart from argument the respondent relied on one citation. Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1.   Affirmatively
2.   Accordingly  
3.   As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

5.     By perusal of Ex.C1 deposit FDR it is evident that the complainant had deposited the amount and maturity amount of the said FDR is Rs.1,00,156/-.

6.     The very contention of the respondent is that the respondent bank is liquidated, as such as per the guidelines the deposite scheme of the complainant is modified and rescheduled by fixing maturity value of Rs.38,102/-. Except say the respondent did not produced any documentary evidence to show that the complainant’s FDR has been modified and rescheduled.  So also the respondent did not produced any document to show that direction issued by any higher authority or by the RBI to reschedule the schemes of the investors.

7.     The very prayer of the complainant to issue direction to the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,156/- with interest, but the respondent disputes the same relying on the circular issued by Joint Director of Cooperative Societies UBC, 3/165 LQD/15-16 Dt.28.12.2015 & judgment copy in Civil Appeal 3035/2008. On looking into the citation Civil Appeal 3035/2008 (Supreme Court) DIC Guarantee Corpn Vs.Raghupati Raghavan & ors., dtd.01.07.2015 no forums, tribunals or courts shall not pass orders suemoto directing the liquidated banks to settle the claim against to the norms & circular of DIC.  Under those circumstances it is not proper to direct the respondent to settle the claim as prayed suemoto. If it is directed the respondent to settle the claim in accordance with the aforesaid judgment it is proper and adequate. As per observation made by this Forum supra the respondent except oral submission did not produced any document to show that the respondent bank as per the guidelines of higher authority modify and reschedule to fix the maturity value to the tune of Rs.38102/- against maturity amount of Rs.1,00,156/-. The same cannot be accepted unless the respondent produced the specific order. If in the event the respondent produced circular or orders then only the respondent could restrict the claim to a tune of Rs.38,102/- as contended otherwise the complainant is entitled for entire maturity amount along with agreed rate of interest on the FDR.

8.     In view of the above discussions and decisions arrived we inclined to hold issue.1 affirmatively & issue.2 accordingly.

9.     Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        The complaint is partly allowed. The complainant is entitled for the amount in accordance with the guidelines of relied Supreme Court judgment in Civil Appeal No.1035/2008. Accordingly the respondent is directed to settle the claim along with Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings. Since the respondent bank is liquidated the complainant is not entitled for compensation. The respondent is also directed to release the amount as per the guidelines of DIC and Supreme Court judgment. Failing to follow the guidelines and failed to perform the compliance as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court Judgment the complainant is at liberty to move for recovery proceedings.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 31^st day of March 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR