Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/66/2014

Munaga Malakondaiah, s/o Hanumanthaia - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager Indian bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

08 Mar 2017

ORDER

 

Date of Filing     :24-09-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:08-03-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Wednesday, this the  8^th  day of   MARCH, 2017

 

           Present:  Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, B.Com., M.L., President (FAC)

                    Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.66/2014

Munaga Malakondaiah,

S/o.Hanumanthaiah,

Hindu, Aged about 50 years,

Resident of Flat No.201,

R.R.Elite Apartments, Lakshmipuram,

Near Settygunta Road,

Nellore.                                                                                       ..… Complainant      

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	The Manager, Indian Bank, Near Gandhi Statute, Trunk Road, Nellore.
2.	The District Collector, Nellore.                                                                                ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 22-02-2017   before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Md. Rahimkhan, advocate for the complainant and                                                          Sri P. Ramaseshaiah,  advocate for the opposite party No.1 and reply from opposite party No.2 received and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Complainant filed  this complaint under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act to direct the opposite parties to refund the term deposit  maturity amount of Rs.3,57,438/- with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of deposit i.e., 28-06-2014 till the date of Collector’s order dated 03-03-2014 and thereafter interest at 24%  p.a.  till realization and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages,  mental agony and inconvenience and pay Rs.5,000/- towards  costs of the complaint.

 

            2.         The averments  of the complaint in brief are  that the complainant is a proprietor of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries, South Rajupalem, Nellore Rural Mandal.  As per the orders of the District Collector, Nellore, the complainant submitted term deposit bearing No.0326635, dated 28-06-2013 for a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- in favour of District Collector, S.P.S.R.Nellore in the  complainant account towards the value of seized stock.  At that time, opposite party No.2 issued final order in the above case for confiscation of 10%  of the seized stock i.e., Rs.1,30,731/-  to the Government.  As per the orders of the opposite party No.2, the complainant remitted the said amount under  challan No.52692, dated 22-02-2014 in Sub-Treasury, Nellore.  Opposite Party No.2 issued orders directing  opposite party No.1 to return the  term deposit                   dated 28-06-2013 of Rs. 3,27,000/-  with accrued interest thereon to the complainant. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 and handedover the order of the opposite party No.2 that the opposite party refused  term deposit  without paying the maturity value, without any basis.  The opposite parties have to return the deposit amount without any delay but refused to   pay the maturity value of Rs.3,57,438/- inspite of letters dated 22-07-2014 and  04-03-2014.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and caused mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss to the complainant.  Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.

 

            3.         Opposite Party No.1 filed  written version (counter) denying the allegation on his part regarding deficiency in  service causing  inconvenience and financial loss  to the complainant but admitted the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.3,27,000/- term deposit on 28-06-2013 with the opposite party bank as pleaded by complainant and also Rs.1,30,731/- towards value of confiscation of seized stock as per the final order of the opposite party No.2.  It is further averred the complainant in the capacity of managing partner of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries, South Rajupalem Village availed total loan limit of Rs.815 lakhs from this bank on 09-03-2013 under various  facilities and committed default in making payment  and he is  due  Rs.8,66,60,767/- and a demand notice was issued on 03-04-2014 to the complainant and other partner, but filed this complaint on false grounds claiming the  term deposit amount of Rs.3,27,000/-.  This opposite party sent reply on 27-10-2014 stating that bank has legal right to set off under general lien of term deposit of Rs.3,27,000/- to the outstanding amounts  of complainant.  Thus there is no deficiency  in service on the part of bank since the bank has got right of general lien for the term deposit amount of Rs.3,27,000/- and also interest accrued thereon.  The complainant   and other partner M. Savithri submitted Agreement of   Hypothecation  of Movables   and set off or  transfer of any sum or sum standing to the credit of  their accounts towards the  borrower’s liability.  The complainant has not suffered any mental agony, inconvenience or financial loss and  complainant is not entitled to  term deposit  maturity  amount of Rs.3,57,438/-, damages and costs as claimed and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            4.         Opposite Party No.2 sent letter (written version) denying  any deficiency of service on their part and  further stated  after final orders issued by the  District Collector, Nellore and after submitting the original challan for  confiscation amount by Sri Munaga Malakondaiah,  original bank F.D.R.  was returned to the bank alongwith a specific direction to release the security amount under proper acknowledgement of Sri M. Malakondaiah.  If the   complainant has got any grievance about the non-payment of the maturity amount with the bank, it is for him  alone to settle the issue independently and the Collector is neither  liable nor answerable.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

            5.         No oral  evidence has been get by the parties.  On behalf of the complainant, his affidavit is filed and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.  On behalf of  opposite party No.1, his affidavit is filed and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.  Written  Arguments filed  by complainant  and opposite party No.1 only.  Heard arguments on both sides and perused the documents filed and considered written arguments.

 

 

            6.         The points that arises for determination are:

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 in retaining the term deposit, maturity amount as pleaded?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs from the opposite parties?
3. To what relief?

 

           7. POINTS 1 AND 2:The learned counsel for  complainant relying on Exs.A1 to A4 contended that inspite of  District Collector’s order to pay the term deposit, opposite party No.1 has not paid the amount of Rs.3,57,438/-.  Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1.  Hence, reliefs may be granted.

 

            8.         On the other hand it is contended on behalf of opposite party No.1,  a suitable reply was given to the Collector’s order and the bank has got every right to retain the term deposit amount as the complainant is a managing  partner of                            Sri  Hanuman Rice Industries and availed a loan of Rs.8.15 crores and bank has general lien over the amounts of  complainant wherever  found in the bank and the same was informed to him and no deficiency in service.  As already stated, the opposite party No.1 relied on Exs.B1 to B6 documents. 

 

            9.         It is an admitted fact that complainant availed a loan of Rs.8.15 crores loan from the opposite parties bank on 09-03-2013  and he is the managing partner of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries, South Rajupalem Village, Nellore and the loan availed on 09-03-2013 is still outstanding though security was offered to that loan.  Now the only grievance of complainant is that his term deposit amount of  Rs.3,27,000/- on 28-06-2013 towards the  value of seized stock and final orders in that case  for confiscation of 10% of the seized stock  i.e., Rs.1,30,731/- to the Government and he is entitled for the maturity amount of Rs.3,57,438/-  from the bank as per the collector orders under Ex.A2, but the same was not paid to him by opposite party No.1.

 

            10.       The contention of  complainant that he  filed  the complaint in individual capacity and he is entitled  for the term deposit as per the orders of Collector does not stand for legal scrutiny.

 

            11.       In para-3 of the complaint, the complainant himself stated that he is the   proprietor of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries, South Rajupalem, Nellore Rural Mandal, S.P.S.R.Nellore District.  It is the case of opposite party No.1 that in the capacity of  managing partner of the said rice mill, the complainant availed Rs.8.15 crores loan from the opposite party   No.1 and committed default in making repayment of the said loan availed on 09-03-2013 and he   and other   partner executed agreement in favour  of  opposite party No.1 creating lien over the amounts deposited in the  bank to satisfy the loan  availed by them.  Since the opposite party No.1 is a banker, who sanctioned  huge loan to the complainant in a sum of Rs.815 lakhs  and the   said amount has not been repaid by the complainant and he executed agreement in favour of opposite party No.1 permitting the opposite party No.1 to realize  the amount wherever   it finds in the  account of complainant, the bank (opposite party No.1) has got general lien over the term deposit maturity amount of complainant and can appropriate the same towards the loan amount sanctioned to him on 09-03-2013.  Moreover the transaction in this case appears to be  a commercial one and the complainant is managing partner of   Sri Hanuman Rice Industries and stock of complainant was seized  by the revenue authorities and in that connection, the term deposit was made by the complainant.  Therefore by retaining the amount by opposite party No.1 towards the loan outstanding by the complainant does not amounts to deficiency in service  in this case and no  mental agony, inconvenience or distress was caused to the complainant by the act of opposite party No.1  Therefore,  we hold that there is no deficiency  in service on the part of either opposite party No.1  or opposite party No.2   and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered against  the complainant.

 

12.  TO WHAT RELIEF:  IN THE RESULT,  the complaint is  dismissed but in circumstances without costs.

 

            Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  8^th  day of   MARCH, 2017.

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

29-07-2015

Sri Munaga Malakondiaah,  S/o.Hanumanthaiah, Nellore (Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

29-04-2015

Sri C.D. Rama Rao, S/o.C. Subba Rao, Working as Chief Manager, Indian Bank, Nellore Branch.Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	28-06-2013	Photostat copy of  Deposit Receipt in TDR No.TS/BTDM 0326635 in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party No1.
Ex.A2  -	03-03-2014	Photostat copy of  letter from opposite party No.2 to the opposite party No.1 in Rc.B.274/2013.
Ex.A3  -	04-03-2014	Photostat copy of  letter from complainant.
Ex.A4  -	22-07-2014	Photostat copy of letter from complainant  to the opposite party No.1.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Ex.B1  -	09-03-2013	Attested copy of letter from opposite party No.1 to the  complainant.
Ex.B2  -	22-03-2013	Attested copy of Agreement of  Hyphothecation of Movables.
Ex.B3  -	22-03-2013	Attested copy of  Agreement for Open Cash Credit (Stocks / Book debts)
Ex.B4  -	27-10-2014	Letter from opposite party No.2.
Ex.B5  -	11-03-2016	Statement  of Account  in the name of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries in Account No.6080564174 issued by the opposite party No.1.
Ex.B6  -	24-10-2016	Statement of Account in the name of Sri Hanuman Rice Industries issued by the opposite party No.1

 

 

                                                                                                                             Id/-

                                                                                                       PRESIDENT (FAC)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri Md. Rahimkhan, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	Sri.P. Ramaseshaiah, Advocate & Notary, H.No.23-4-305, Sri Sainilayam, Mahalakshmi Temple Street, Aravinda Nagar Extension, Nellore-524 003.
3.	The District Collector, Nellore.

 

Date when free copy was issued: