IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADIKERI

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER                           SMT. C.RENUKAMBA

1. This complaint under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay the sum of Rs.48,790-00 with interest at the rate of Rs.12% per annum from the date of the deposit till realization along with Rs.20,000/- towards damages and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was working as a pigmy collector associated with the opposite party No.1 and collecting pigmy (daily collection of deposits) from the customers and he was discharging his duties promptly without any blemishes.  But due to bonafide reasons he left the job of pigmy collector by handling over all the money collected through the pigmy with all the relevant documents to the opposite party no.1.

3. That the complainant during the time of aforesaid pigmy collection many of the customers borrowed pigmy loan from the opposite party no.1.  The opposite party no.2 is one of such customer of the opposite party no.1 borrowed a loan from the bank under Pigmy loan category.  But the  opposite party no.2 did not repay the said pigmy loan to the bank and became defaulter.  The bank initiated proceedings for the recovery of the said loan amount before the competent court at Madikeri against the second opposite party.

4. That the complainant kept some money as Fixed deposit with the first opposite party bank thinking about the future prospect bearing FDR No.3390-.  The FD receipt were kept by the first opposite bank.  For his utter shock and surprise, the first opposite party forfeited the amount of sum of Rs.48,790/- from out of the Fixed Deposit amount kept in the name of the complainant and adjusted towards the aforesaid loan account of the O.P.No.2 on 03-02-2020.

5. That the said FD amount is complainant hard earned money and his savings.  The opposite party no.1 has forfeited the FD amount of the complainant and adjusted towards the loan account of the second opposite party.  The complainant is neither a borrower nor a surety for the aforesaid loan of the second opposite party.  Therefore the first opposite party has committed a deficiency in service to the complainant.  The Bank has acted beyond their limits and beyond their jurisdictional powers and committed deficiency in service.

6. That the complainant lodged a petition P.L.C No. 29/2020 before the Hon’ble District Legal Services Authority, Madikeri for seeking appropriate relief against the opposite parties.  But the opposite parties failed to settle the matter in dispute and failed to pay the FD amount of sum of Rs.48,790/- to the complainant.  Instead of settling the matter the opposite party no.1 submitted before the Lok Adalath stating that, they have no powers to remit back the amount and there is no bye law in this regard.  Accordingly Hon’ble Lok Adalath, Madikeri passed an order in PLC No.29/2020 dated 25/11/2020 directing the complainant to approach the Consumer Forum for the appropriate reliefs and accordingly disposed the matter as closed.

7. That the complainant requested and demanded the bank to remit the FD amount in his favour, but the bank has failed to pay the same to him.  The complainant is entitled to receive his own FD amount kept in the bank.  The opposite party no.1 is liable to pay the FD amount with interest thereon in favour of the complainant.

8. In this case complainant filed his examination-in-chief by way of affidavit evidence as CW-1 with documents marked as exhibit C-1 to C-7.

9. Opposite parties inspite of service of notice remained absent and therefore they are set ex-parte.

10. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite parties and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought ?
2. What order ?

11. Our findings on the above points are as under;
    1. Point No.1&2 :- In the partly Affirmative
    2. Point No.3:- As per the final order for the        

following ;

R E A S O N S

12. Point No.1:- Complainant being a pigmy collector with opposite party no.1 bank is evident from the documents submitted.  Hence, the same need not be proved.

13. In verification of the documents furnished by the complainant, it is noticed that, the complainant had opened an FDR account with opposite party no.1 bearing No.FDR 3390, therefore the complainant is consumer of opposite party no.1 bank services.  It is also noticed from the documents that opposite party no.2 had taken loan from opposite party no.1 and had been a defaulter.  Opposite party no.1 bank has forfeited complainant’s FDR amount of Rs.48,790/- which was in complainant’s FDR account NO FDR3390 towards opposite party no.2 loan without giving any notice to the complainant before forfeiture.

14. In exhibit C-3 documents submitted by the   complainant, it is letter no.2009-10 dated 01-08-2009 observed that, exhibit C-3 contain terms and conditions laid down by opposite party no.1 bank for a pigmy collector, and also contains criterias for appointment of a pigmy collector, in these documents no where it is mentioned that, opposite party no.1 would forfeit the FDR amount of pigmy collector, on lapse or failure of his pigmy collection from customers.

15. From the above facts, it is clear that, opposite party bank has caused deficiency in service towards complainant.  Therefore, opposite party no.1 bank is held liable to pay compensation.  Accordingly this commission answered point no.1 in the partly affirmative. 

16. Point No.2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order;

O R D E R

1. The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.
2. The complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed.
3. The opposite party no.1 is hereby directed to release the FDR amount of Rs.48,780/- along with interest at 10% per annum to the complainant.
4. The opposite party no.1 is also hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency in service and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
5. This order is to be complied by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to have a redressal as per law.
6. Copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of cost and file shall be consigned to record room.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th  DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021)

    (B. NIRMALAKUMAR)      (RENUKAMBA.C)               (PRAKASH.K)                                      

          MEMBER                      MEMBER                        PRESIDENT