THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022
PRESENT
SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER
SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 125/2017
Miss. H.C. Priyanka
D/o Mr. S.T.Chandre Gowda,
Aged about 23 years,
Jayanagara Extension,
Hassan City, Hassan,
….Appellant/s.
(Represented by Mr.Rajesh .P, Adv.,)
-Versus-
The Manager,
Karnatak Bank Limited,
Branch Arkalgud,
Hassan District.
(Represented by Y.V.Parthasarathy, Adv.,)
……….. Respondent/s
: ORDERS:
BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR - JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant/complainant filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order dated:30/07/2015 passed by Hassan District Consumer Commission in C.C.No.117/2013, which dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant.
2. The brief facts of the case is that there was a deposit of Rs.80,312/- and Rs.70,859/- with the Opposite Party/Bank. The said deposits were not released in her favour after she attains majority and hence filed a complaint against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service. The Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and contended that initially there was a deposit in her name and the same was deposited by her Father and she was the minor at the time of deposit. Subsequently, dispute arose between the Father and Mother of the complainant and they decided to live separately. Thereafter Father of the complainant filed G & W petition bearing No.6/2003 before the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) at Hassan against one Sumithra and Opposite Party to declare him as a guardian and the same was dismissed and thereafter Sumithra filed a Civil Revision Petitioner bearing No.297/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and after hearing the petition, the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has given a direction to this Opposite Party not to disburse any amount in favour of the petitioners and specific direction was given to the Manager not to allow both the parties to liquidate the F.D. made in the name of H.C.Prihanka/complainant. After that, Mother of the complainant Smt.Sumithra W/o Chandregowda filed Consumer Complaint before the District Commission which was initially dismissed, against which she preferred appeal before this State Commission and obtained an order in her favour and this Commission has directed the Opposite Party to release the amount in her favour and also a direction was given to the said Sumithra to make amount under F.D. till the complainant attains majority. Basing on the said order, this Opposite Party has released the F.D. amount in favour of said Sumithra and submits no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint holding that the amount was not with the Opposite Party/Bank and the said amount was released in favour of said Sumithra. Hence, if at all the complainant is entitled to claim the said amount she is at liberty to claim from Sumithra.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed this appeal on various grounds.
5. We have heard the arguments from respondent. Appellant not addressed her arguments.
6. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission and required documents produced before the District Commission, we noticed that H.C.Priyanka is the Daughter of one Chandregowda and Sumithra. There was an F.D. amount of Rs.80,312/- and 70,859/- which was deposited under two F.D. bonds with Opposite Party/Bank. When there arose dispute between the Father and Mother of the said complainant, the Father of the complainant approached the Civil Court by filing G & W case No.6/2003 and which was subsequently dismissed by the Civil Court and thereafter Smithra approached the Hon’ble High Court by filing Civil Revision petition No.297/2008, which also dismissed with a direction not to pay the matured bond amount to Chandregowda or Sumithra and thereafter the said Sumithra preferred a Consumer complaint in complaint No.278/2007 for return of the F.D. amount. The said complaint was also dismissed, against which she preferred the appeal by filing appeal No.1237/2008 before this Commission by suppressing the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and obtained an order for release of the said amount in her favour. Further, this Commission has given a direction to the said Sumithra to deposit the maturity value of the amount in any of the Nationalized Banks in the name of complainant until complainant i.e. Priyanka attains majority. But so-for we noticed that the said Sumithra had not deposited the said maturity amount in any Nationalized Bank.
7. Anyhow the complainant attained majority and had filed a complaint before the District commission in C.C.No.117/2013 stating all these facts and requested the District Commission to pay the maturity amount from the Bank. After trial, the District Commission dismissed the complaint.
8. We noticed here that it is a clear case of fraud played by one Sumithra in order to receive the amount which was deposited in the name of complainant. The Opposite Party/Bank in spite of knowing that there is a direction from the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka has released the amount as per the direction given by this Commission. We found the Opposite Party/Bank had acted as per the order passed by this Commission and we noticed that this Commission also has given a direction against the said Sumithra to deposit the maturity amount in any Nationalized Bank till the complainant i.e. Priyanka attains majority. When the said amount was not deposited, the complainant has right to initiate the proceedings against the said Sumithra to recover the said matured amount with interest. We found there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party/Bank as because the Opposite Party has obeyed the order passed by this Commission in appeal No.1237/2008. We found there is no any error in the order passed by the District Commission as the District Commission has suggested the complainant that she is at liberty to approach the Civil Court for recovery of the said matured amount from Sumithra. Hence, appeal fails. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The impugned order 30.07.2015 passed by Hassan District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.117/2013 is confirmed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.
Member. Judicial Member.
Tss
